1 Thursday, 8th October 1998
2 (Open session)
3 --- Upon commencing at 10.09 a.m.
4 JUDGE JORDA: Bring in the witness, please.
5 Good morning to the interpreters, good morning to
6 everyone. Does everybody hear me? We can now
7 continue, that is, as soon as the witness is in the
8 courtroom, of course.
9 (The witness entered court)
10 JUDGE JORDA: General, do you hear me? Do
11 you hear me, Brigadier?
12 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, I think we're getting
13 some overlap in the interpretation booth. I am getting
14 the Croatian translation.
15 JUDGE JORDA: Do you hear me in English?
16 MR. KEHOE: Yes, I hear you.
17 JUDGE JORDA: Do you hear my voice, there?
18 MR. KEHOE: I hear you, but I also hear Maya.
19 JUDGE JORDA: Are you getting the English?
20 Do you hear me Brigadier?
21 THE WITNESS: I am not getting the Croatian
22 translation. I am not getting the Croatian
24 JUDGE JORDA: Registrar, do you think we
25 should suspend --
1 THE INTERPRETER: It's fine now.
2 JUDGE JORDA: Did you have a restful night,
4 THE WITNESS: Yes.
5 JUDGE JORDA: Today is going to be long.
6 Mr. Kehoe is going to continue with the
8 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President, Your
9 Honours, Counsel.
10 WITNESS: SLAVKO MARIN (Resumed)
11 Cross-examined by Mr. Kehoe:
12 Q. Good morning, Brigadier.
13 A. Good morning.
14 Q. Brigadier, we are again moving into another
15 subject area here, and one of the areas that you
16 discussed, and this was in your arguments or in your
17 statements in response to Defence's questions
18 concerning the problems of command in Central Bosnia.
19 You noted that Colonel Blaskic couldn't
20 appoint and dismiss brigade commanders and other
21 commanders, except with the input and approval of the
22 locals, the local municipal authorities. And
23 specifically, if we could just go through your
24 transcript of your prior testimony on direct.
25 On page 12.170, you noted at line 9 that if
1 you want to appoint a brigade commander, before doing
2 anything else, the commander of the Operative Zone,
3 Colonel Blaskic, had to reach an agreement with
4 municipal authorities. When such an agreement was
5 reached, information from the commander would be
6 submitted through the brigade commander to the
7 commander of the Operative Zone to the highest level
8 and to the president of the Croatian community of
10 On page 12.072, you noted that the method in
11 appointing of commanders, a major influence and a
12 decisive role was played by the municipal
13 functionaries; if we are talking about the commanders,
14 at the municipal level.
15 Lastly, on page 12.147 you again noted on
16 line 12 that with regard to appointments of brigade
17 commanders the key role was played by the local
18 political authorities with respect to the brigades and
19 with respect to the subordinate units.
20 We discussed, or Defence put several
21 documents in, one particular document we will talk
22 about briefly, which prompted a question from Judge
23 Riad which said, Judge Riad asked, "So, this is not
24 stated at all in these documents, the practice was
25 contrary to the orders."
1 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Hayman is not satisfied by
2 this long introduction, and he is wondering whether you
3 are arguing or whether your making a final statement.
4 He doesn't really understand the question you're going
5 to ask, nor have the Judges understood. Mr. Kehoe, we
6 don't really have a great deal of time, try to go right
7 to the questions.
8 MR. KEHOE: I am, Judge. I'm just going back
9 to -- the questions are going to be based on what the
10 witness said in the past, and we're merely going to it.
11 Q. This is my final point. The question
12 was, "How did you dismiss a commander? Was the
13 permission of the municipal authorities required for
14 this, too, or could the Commander in Chief do so
16 And your answer was, "The approval was
17 required of the municipal authorities."
18 So, your point, sir, was that the municipal
19 authorities were both, the approval of those
20 authorities was needed to both dismiss and appoint
22 JUDGE JORDA: We understood that, Mr. Kehoe.
23 Let's go forward, come on. We've already understood
24 that. Now take the documents out and ask the
1 MR. KEHOE:
2 Q. Let us turn our attention to two documents,
3 sir, Defence Exhibit 47, and, Mr. Dubuisson, the
4 excerpts from the Narodni Lists, which I believe is
5 Defence Exhibit 38, if we could just go to the area
6 that's tabbed. We're going to deal with the articles
7 in that tab right there, which is article 29 and 34, on
8 the tabbed page, sir.
9 Defence Exhibit 247, yes.
10 JUDGE JORDA: Was that 47 or 247? I didn't
11 quite get the number.
12 MR. KEHOE: 247, Mr. President. Defence 247.
13 If we could put the ELMO on in the video
14 booth, please. Okay.
15 Q. Brigadier, do you have those documents before
16 you, both the Narodni Lists, Articles 29 and 34?
17 A. I do.
18 Q. As well as Defence Exhibit 247?
19 A. I have both documents in front of me.
20 Q. Let's move through these quickly, Brigadier.
21 Starting on Article 29, correct me if I'm wrong, but
22 the article, and we will move straight to the pertinent
23 part in Article 29, where it says: "The supreme
24 commander of the armed forces of the Croatian community
25 of Herceg-Bosna shall be the president of the Croatian
1 community of Herceg-Bosna presidency. The supreme
2 commander shall appoint and dismiss from duty military
3 commanders in accordance with the special provision."
4 Now, let us turn our attention to Article 34,
5 and we will be focusing on subdivision 2 in that
6 article. Article 34, "Commanders in the armed forces
7 shall be appointed and dismissed as follows: The
8 presidency of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna
9 shall appoint and dismiss commanders of brigades and
10 high ranking officers.
11 The Croatian Defence Council, HVO, shall
12 appoint and dismiss commanders of battalions and
13 companies, as well as other officers; and brigade
14 commanders shall appoint and dismiss commanders of
15 platoons, detachments and other non-commissioned
17 Now, let us turn our attention to Defence
18 Exhibit 34, where there is apparently a request for
19 clarification on the power to appoint and dismiss. And
20 Blaskic answers that, and I believe during the Defence
21 direct you identified this document as Colonel
22 Blaskic's signature.
23 The accused calls on Article 34 in this
24 document, and let me read it and move to the pertinent
25 part on number 2.
1 "Further, to the provisions of Article 34 of
2 the decree of the armed forces of the Croatian
3 community of Herceg-Bosna," and he refers to the
4 Narodni List Gazette, the Official Gazette, "the order
5 of the main HVO headquarters 396, of 27 June 1992, and
6 the authorisation of the head of the Defence office of
7 the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna, 0323992, of 4
8 December 1992, we hereby give you some clarification on
9 the persons authorised to appoint officers and
10 non-commissioned officers to certain posts and to
11 dismiss them and the procedure for this."
12 Let's move to 2. "The head of the Defence
13 office and the commanders authorised by him appoint and
14 dismiss other officers, i.e. persons who have been
15 proposed for these officer posts.
16 Now, do you see that, sir?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. Now, Blaskic was given an authorisation by
19 the head of the defence officers to appoint and
20 dismiss; wasn't he, pursuant to Article 34?
21 A. General Blaskic had the authority, the
22 prescribed authority envisaged by procedure to appoint
23 and dismiss commanders in the way envisaged by the
24 provisions of Article 34 of the decree that we have
25 before you, that is, on the basis of the authorisation
1 he was given.
2 I'm not sure whether he was given that
3 authorisation by the president of the Croatian
4 community of Herceg-Bosna or the head of the defence
5 department. This can be seen from the documents on
6 commander appointments. It was on the basis of that
7 authorisation that he appointed the commanders within
8 the scope of competence of the president of the
9 presidency. That is those above the level of the
10 Operative Zone.
11 Why General Blaskic was given such
12 authorisation was, in my personal opinion, the fact
13 that we were cut off and that we were unable to
14 communicate with our superiors, and to ensure greater
15 efficiency of operations. That was the rule. But in
16 practice, things were different.
17 On the basis of this article, General Blaskic
18 wrote appointments and dismissals; but for that to be
19 carried out, for the document that he wrote to be
20 implemented, he had to have the approval and had to
21 have consultations, both in the case of appointments
22 and dismissals.
23 Sometimes we had commanders of municipal
24 headquarters, sometimes brigade commanders, in those
25 cases he had to have the approval of political
1 representatives. That is, representatives of the
2 civilian municipal authorities. Because, throughout
3 the war, during the paralysis of the authorities of
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the municipalities functioned as a
6 When talking about lower level appointments
7 of platoon or company commanders, which the brigade
8 commander was authorised to do, the brigade commander
9 could not carry out that appointment in a village, the
10 commander of a platoon or a company, if the village did
11 not approve of that commander, because such a person
12 would have no authority at all. That was the reality.
13 What we are talking about are the provisions,
14 the regulated provisions based on the decree of the
15 armed forces of Herceg-Bosna and Article 34, which
16 authorised General Blaskic to do this. And he did so,
17 but under the conditions I've described, both when it
18 had to do with appointments and dismissals.
19 I think that we have several such orders here
20 that have been tendered by the Defence, as far as I
22 Q. Well, this document has been tendered by the
23 Defence, Brigadier, and nothing of what you said
24 appears in this document, does it, where Blaskic
25 himself is issuing a clarification on the appointment
1 to, on the authorisation to appoint and dismiss; none
2 of what you said is in this clarification.
3 A. General Blaskic, in this document, provides
4 clarifications for brigade commanders. I assume this
5 clarification was necessary, because in the brigade
6 command they probably didn't have this decree on the
7 armed forces, so that the provisions of that decree
8 have been copied so that the brigades would know what
9 was meant. Because it can be seen that the supreme
10 commander can transfer his authority to a commander.
11 The procedure was as I have described, and as
12 corroborated by the documents.
13 Q. Let's turn to some of those documents, and
14 with the assistance of the usher, we will move through
15 some documents relatively quickly. And if we can
16 gather them at once, 456/62, 456/ --
17 JUDGE JORDA: Are you still talking about the
18 same subject?
19 MR. KEHOE: Still the same subject, Judge.
20 We have a few more questions, we're going to move
21 through quickly.
22 JUDGE JORDA: The Judges really do understand
23 the difference in the point of view here.
24 MR. KEHOE: I understand, Judge, but we have
25 some documents to explore this area, in light of some
1 of the issues that have been raised, that possibly will
2 clarify the issue a little more.
3 Again, Mr. Dubuisson, it's 456/62, 456/63,
4 456/64, 456/65, 456/66 and 456/67. That would be
5 456/62 through 456/67, in series.
6 I assure you, Mr. President, we will move
7 through these documents quickly.
8 Q. Now, the first document, Brigadier, do you
9 see that document? It's dated, actually it's dated the
10 4th of July 1992. At least that's the stamp in the
11 upper left-hand corner of the document.
12 A. It is a document 95/14, is that the document
13 you're referring to?
14 Q. No, it's not. If I can take a look, it
15 should be Exhibit 456/62, and the stamp on the upper
16 left-hand corner is 4 July 1992.
17 A. The document I have in my hand is marked
18 IT-95-14-T. That's the document that I have -- but the
19 number doesn't fit.
20 Q. Brigadier, this is a document signed by
21 Colonel Blaskic; is it not?
22 A. Could we please check whether we're talking
23 about the same document? Or could you please read the
24 first sentence so I know I have the right document?
25 The document I have in my hand.
1 Q. It says, "Bearing in mind the need to form
2 zones of responsibility or operative zones, in the
3 region of Central Bosnia, I hereby issue the
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. Is that document signed by Colonel Blaskic?
7 A. Yes, this is General Blaskic's signature.
8 Q. Okay. Is that his stamp?
9 A. This is the stamp of the regional
10 headquarters for Central Bosnia, this headquarters was
11 operating with a base in Gornji Vakuf.
12 Q. In this document on the 4th of July 1992,
13 Blaskic is appointing four commanders for four
14 Operative Zones throughout the Central Bosnia Operative
15 Zone; isn't that right?
16 A. In the first paragraph that is what it says.
17 Q. Now, is it your testimony that Blaskic
18 consulted with all the municipal leaders when he
19 appointed these Operative Zone commanders, before he
20 appointed them?
21 A. I claim with respect to this document, as
22 follows: Even though I was not in this headquarters at
23 the time, but I know what the practice was for the
24 general to appoint these people, and when I was
25 speaking about the organisation I said that there were
1 regional crisis staffs with representatives of the
2 political authorities in the municipality on them; and
3 for such a document to be passed, and for such
4 appointments to be made, General Blaskic had to act in
5 this way. Especially as General Blaskic didn't even
6 know these people at the time, because he was serving
7 in Slovenia, and he certainly had to have consultations
8 and get the green light to appoint such people.
9 This was particularly pronounced at the
10 beginning when people were suspicious about certain
11 commanders and didn't trust them, and the people
12 demanded, and the politicians insisted that those
13 people should be appointed which the people felt would
14 lead them best in the struggle and who would best
15 organise defence in their area.
16 Q. Let's turn to the next document, the 24th of
17 October 1992, which is 456/63. Now, this is a
18 document, is it signed by Colonel Blaskic?
19 A. Yes, this document was signed by General
20 Blaskic. This is his signature of the command of the
21 Central Bosnia Operative Zone headquarters. This can
22 be seen from the stamp, that was how it was called at
23 the time.
24 Q. In this document, Blaskic is nominating
25 Colonel Filip Filipovic commander of the municipal
1 headquarters in Travnik and Nikola Grubic deputy
3 Now, prior to doing this, is it your
4 testimony that he had to consult with the municipal
5 authorities in order to appoint these people?
6 A. He certainly had to consult with those
7 authorities, and it can be seen from this order that
8 the commander wrote this order on the basis of the
9 authorisation he was given by the main headquarters,
10 the authorisation I explained a moment ago; and
11 especially in this case he had to have consultations
12 with representatives of the municipal authorities,
13 because Filipovic had only just arrived from the former
14 Yugoslav People's Army.
15 Q. Let's turn our attention to 456/64, which is
16 an order of Blaskic on the 20th of November 1992. Now,
17 in this particular document, again, this is a packet
18 communication; is it not?
19 A. Yes, a packet communication.
20 Q. In this document Blaskic says: "In view of
21 the situation on the front, I hereby appoint a new
22 defence sector commander and relieve the present
23 commander of his duties.
24 1. Mr. Ivica Rajic being appointed commander
25 of section one, and Mr. Ivica Cosic deputy commander,.
1 2. Mr. Zivko Tojic shall be appointed
2 commander of sector Two, and Mario Cerkez" -- it
3 probably was Mario Cerkez, and it says that in the
4 original -- "deputy commander."
5 Now, in this particular document, Blaskic is
6 both appointing and relieving commanders, at least
7 that's what the preparatory language is?
8 A. I don't see anyone here. Yes, I see, that is
9 what it says in the preamble, but I can explain this
11 This order came into being after we lost our
12 positions to the army of Republika Srpska in the
13 territory of Travnik municipality.
14 This is not an appointment, a permanent
15 appointment. The commander of the sector will remain
16 that for 10 or 15 days until the defence line is
17 established, because you see that the commander is from
18 Kiseljak, an officer is from Busovaca that Zivko is
19 from Zenica, that Mario Cerkez is from Vitez; these
20 were commanders of brigades or municipal headquarters,
21 it depended, being appointed as sector commanders.
22 Which means we used all available forces in order to
23 successfully organise and stop the advance of the
24 Bosnian Serb army.
25 This is operative use, so, these commanders,
1 in addition to their duties as brigade commanders, at
2 the same time were sector commanders. And this lasted
3 for a month or a month-and-a-half. So this is
4 operative use of forces, this exists in military
6 Q. So, in order to get operative use of forces,
7 did Blaskic need municipal approval, or not?
8 A. In this specific situation the danger was
9 threatening of the Bosnian Serb army entering Travnik.
10 So, we exerted the utmost efforts, together with the BH
11 army, to stop their advance and we succeeded.
12 Q. That wasn't my question. My question was
13 whether or not he needed municipal authority to issue
14 this order on the sector commanders. That was my
16 A. When brigade commanders are engaged as sector
17 commanders, then it was up to the commander to assess
18 the situation in the area within the zone of
19 responsibility of a particular brigade, and he would
20 choose the most suitable person.
21 So, in this case he did not need to ask for
22 approval for an already appointed brigade commander to
23 become a sector commander for a month, a
24 month-and-a-half, or for 20 days, as the situation on
25 the battle front.
1 Q. So you would agree with me, Brigadier, that
2 there are some situations, according to your testimony,
3 where Blaskic would need municipal authority, but there
4 are other situations, such as reflected in this
5 exhibit, 456/64, where he does not need municipal
6 authority; is that right?
7 A. This order and this example is unique, there
8 are no multiple examples of this kind.
9 Q. This order of appointment and dismissal is
10 unique, is that your testimony?
11 A. Yes, it is the only one of its kind.
12 Q. Let's just go through the rest of these very
13 quickly and we'll explore that subject in one moment.
14 Let's turn our attention to the balance of these
15 documents and we have 456/65.
16 JUDGE RIAD: I just want to ask the witness,
17 Brigadier, did you know about this order or you have
18 just discovered it now when the Prosecutor submitted it
19 to you?
20 A. Mr. President, Your Honours, I knew of this
21 order. I remember its text because I was involved in
22 the organisation of defence in these sectors. I, at
23 that time, had a different task and a different role
24 and this is why I remember this.
25 JUDGE RIAD: Except that you were very
1 categorical when you answered me that General Blaskic
2 could never dismiss without the consent of the other
3 municipal Commanders. You never mentioned there were
5 A. Your Honour, General Blaskic could never
6 dismiss a Brigade Commander, but if he wanted to
7 appoint 20 persons to help out on a certain task, he
8 did not need any approval, otherwise we wouldn't have
9 been able to function at all the way we did.
10 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you.
11 MR. KEHOE:
12 Q. Brigadier, let's go back to the exhibit we
13 were just going to discuss again 546/65, an order on
14 the 9th of January, 1993. And in this order, Blaskic
15 calls on the various articles in the Narodni List or
16 the official gazette as would be translated in English
17 and he says:
18 "Pursuant to Article 29, Item 7, Article 30,
19 Item 2, Article 31, Article 34, Item 2 on the decree on
20 armed forces of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna,
21 and the authorisation issued by the main staff of the
22 Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna, Operation Zone
23 39692 of the 27th" -- excuse me -- "27th of June, 1992,
24 issued an order. Ivica Bagaric from Travnik is
25 appointed chief of the Travnik Brigade, anti-aircraft
1 defence with headquarters in Travnik." Again, another
2 order appointing someone chief of the Travnik Brigade.
3 In this order, did Blaskic have to get the municipal
5 A. Just a moment. Just a moment, please. This
6 is the chief -- sorry, my translation was that it was a
7 Brigade Commander. No, he was an expert within the
8 command, a person who is involved in the air defences,
9 so this is within the command structure.
10 Q. Brigadier, let's clarify the translation and
11 I am reading No. 1 and we should get this clear before
12 I explore this question. It says, "Ivica Bagaric from
13 Travnik is appointed chief of the Travnik Brigade
14 anti-aircraft defence with headquarters in Travnik."
15 A. Yes, with headquarters in Travnik.
16 Q. Now my question for you is, did Blaskic need
17 the municipal authority approval to appoint Mr. Ivica
18 Bagaric to that position?
19 A. With respect to the officers in the Brigade
20 commands, then the Operative Zone Commander had to do
21 it in agreement with the Brigade Commander. So in
22 order for Mr. Ivica Bagaric to be appointed to this
23 duty, Mr. Blaskic had to reach an agreement with his
24 Brigade Commander on this appointment.
25 Q. Brigadier, that's not my question. My
1 question is: Did Blaskic need the approval of the
2 municipal authorities to appoint Ivica Bagaric to this
3 particular position as chief of the Travnik Brigade
4 anti-aircraft defence? Did he need the municipal
5 authority approval, or did he not?
6 A. As far as I know for officers in the Brigade
7 commands, no approval of the municipal authorities was
8 needed. But the Brigade Commanders' approval was
9 needed. That was the reality.
10 Q. So, Brigadier, we have another situation on
11 the appointment of Commanders where Blaskic did not
12 need municipal authority approval in order to appoint
13 somebody; isn't that correct?
14 A. That is not the situation because the
15 military Commanders are the following officers: The
16 commander of squad, platoon, company, battalion and so
17 forth. All other officers are just chiefs of
18 departments. They do not have a command authority and
19 role. So the chief of anti-aircraft defence is an
20 expert position. I was the chief of the operations and
21 training, so I did not have a command role. It was an
22 expert role. So the command position is just command
23 responsibility, be it at a level of squad, platoon, and
24 so on.
25 Q. So again, Brigadier, the bottom line is that
1 he did not need municipal authority approval to appoint
2 Mr. Bagaric to this position? It's a simple question.
3 MR. HAYMAN: He has answered the question,
4 Mr. President. How long is he going to spend on this?
5 It's an anti-aircraft expert position. This man was
6 not a Brigade Commander, not a squad Commander, not a
7 platoon Commander, etc, etc.
8 MR. KEHOE: Let him answer the question yes
9 or no and we'll move on.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Could we ask the Judge to
11 turn the microphone on, please.
12 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Hayman, you have to realise
13 that the witness does not answer the questions
14 directly. For several times now -- please let me
15 speak. You spoke, I listened to you. In fact, I think
16 we're going to stop the question and the Tribunal will
17 make its evaluation. But I wanted to tell you that
18 several times now, the witness answered the questions
19 indirectly. He starts with a long introduction, which,
20 in fact, means that after several moments, the Judges
21 are taken from one subject to another. The witness
22 does not recognise a certain kind of contradiction
23 within his own words, which is what Judge Riad
24 initially brought out. Of course I am going to stop
25 because -- I was going to stop him, but I ask you to
1 keep your calm, Mr. Hayman, because many things are
2 happening here also have to do with the way the witness
3 is answering. The questions are simple in respect of
4 those questions and each time we seem to drift away to
5 an exception, to another exception. That's what I
6 wanted to say. Did you wish to make a comment? I'll
7 give you the floor. I really wanted to share my
8 opinion with you. Mr. Nobilo.
9 MR. NOBILO: Thank you, Mr. President. Of
10 course the Defence is trying to assist in this
11 proceedings so that it would go as smoothly as
12 possible. But we have problems in terminology. My
13 colleague is confusing certain terms and this is why we
14 have the impression that our witness is not clear.
15 When it was said that Blaskic could not appoint
16 Commanders without the approval of the municipal
17 authorities, this is what my witness is answering to,
18 that it was just a Commander and he could not. The
19 same when we have officers in a field and we have as
20 yet a different category, so there are three different
21 categories here that we're talking about.
22 JUDGE JORDA: I suggest that Mr. Kehoe ask
23 his questions category by category again. The
24 Brigadier will answer only in a direct fashion very
25 briefly and then the Judges will evaluate because I
1 think that they have received enough information. The
2 Judges will read the orders, the transcripts, the
3 witness' answers and the Prosecutor's questions.
4 All right, Mr. Kehoe, for the last time,
5 would you ask the questions if you have several of
6 them, ask them. The type of command by type of
7 command, if you like. The witness will answer very
8 directly and very succinctly and then the Judges will
9 make their evaluations with the documents that they
10 have and then we're going to move to another subject
11 because it's going to be almost one hour now that we
12 spent -- actually, more than one hour on this subject
13 and especially since we began with it yesterday.
14 Mr. Kehoe.
15 MR. KEHOE:
16 Q. Well the question I have on this document
17 regarding Mr. Bagaric, 456/65 is; did Blaskic, or did
18 he not, need the approval of the municipal authorities
19 to appoint Mr. Bagaric to this position?
20 A. For the appointment up to this position, that
21 is the position of the chief of the anti-aircraft
22 defence, Commander Blaskic did not approval of the
23 municipal authorities.
24 Q. Did Mr. Bagaric have individuals under his
25 command once he received this appointment?
1 A. Commander Bagaric did not have any personnel
2 under his command in this duty.
3 Q. So Commander Bagaric became chief of the
4 anti-aircraft defence, but he had nobody under him as
5 the chief; is that what you're saying?
6 A. As far as I know, he did not.
7 Q. So he was working by himself?
8 A. Mr. President, Your Honours, I would need to
9 recall the --
10 JUDGE JORDA: It's a direct question.
11 Brigadier, when the Chief Bagaric was the chief of the
12 anti-aircraft defence headquarters, you're saying he
13 had no soldiers under his order, is that what you're
14 saying? That's what you had just said, he had no
15 soldiers under his order because that's going to be put
16 into the record.
17 THE WITNESS: No, he did not have
19 JUDGE JORDA: Very well.
20 MR. KEHOE:
21 Q. Let's turn to 456/66, Brigadier. Now 456/66,
22 Brigadier, is an order of Blaskic of the 26th of
23 January, 1993, and nomination and an appointment. He
24 talks about due to the current changes in the situation
25 -- we'll go to the order 1:
1 "I nominate and appointment Mr. Milenko
2 Aravpovic as the company Commander of the 1st
3 battalion. And Mr. Pero -- and pardon my pronunciation
4 Drljepan -- is appointed as company logistics officer
5 as well as deputy commander and the former Commander is
6 relieved by this order." And this goes to the Brigade
7 in Busovaca, the Nikola Subic-Zrinski Brigade.
8 Now, with regard to these particular
9 appointments, did Blaskic need the approval of the
10 municipal authorities to appoint and dismiss this
12 A. Mr. President, Your Honours, I cannot answer
13 this question with a simple yes or no, I need to
14 clarify it. When I spoke about the appointment of
15 company Commanders, which are the local units, I
16 explained what the procedure was. This was the
17 procedure: A company Commander would be nominated at a
18 local level in the village or local commune. This
19 nomination would reach the Brigade Commander and then
20 he would forward it to the Operative Zone Commander and
21 this is how this company Commander would have been
22 appointed. It would have come through up to the
23 Operative Zone Commander.
24 JUDGE JORDA: Do you agree that nothing in
25 this order alludes to this procedure? There is nothing
1 in this order which refers to that type of procedure,
2 do you agree with what I have just said?
3 THE WITNESS: Mr. President, in no order
4 which we have reviewed is this procedure transparent.
5 I am just talking about the practice. This is the
6 procedure that was followed and Mr. Blaskic was trying
7 to organise the army.
8 JUDGE JORDA: The time we were working on
9 documents, you also had documents during direct
10 examination, do you have an additional question about
11 that, Mr. Kehoe?
12 MR. KEHOE:
13 Q. My question by way of clarification is,
14 Brigadier, so your answer is no, that the municipal
15 authorities had no veto decision or veto power over
16 this decision; is that correct?
17 A. The municipal authorities did not have a veto
18 authority, but they had to get approval from the local
20 JUDGE JORDA: Very well. But it's not in the
21 document. We would have thought that would have been
22 in the document. That has happened on such and such a
23 date, having consulted the representatives of the
24 municipality, you agree that that is not there?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct, Mr.
2 JUDGE JORDA: It's possible that the Defence
3 counsel will bring the written proof of that type of
4 procedure that must have been established at staff
5 headquarters. I suppose one party must have acted
6 pursuant to certain type of procedures. But for the
7 time being, we're noting that no reference is made in
8 this order to any type of consultations. Would you
9 please continue Mr. Kehoe.
10 MR. KEHOE: Let's go to the last document in
11 this series which is 456/57.
12 Q. Now, again, Brigadier, this is an order
13 signed by the accused, Colonel Blaskic, is it not?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. It's dated the 30th of March, 1993. And
16 Blaskic --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Excuse me, I didn't mean to interrupt there.
19 I'm sorry. This should be 67, Judge. The transcript
20 reads 456/57, it should be 456/67. Is it this
21 document? That's the document. That's the document on
22 the ELMO. Thank you.
23 Now on this document, again Blaskic calls
24 upon his powers in Article 31 and has delegated
25 authority and he actually appoints Mr. Malbasic and
1 takes him from the Stjepan Tomasevic Brigade and
2 transfers him to the Bobovac Brigade in Vares. Do you
3 see that?
4 A. Yes, I do see it.
5 Q. Now, how far away is the Stjepan Tomasevic
6 Brigade from the Bobovac Brigade in Vares?
7 A. The Stjepan Tomasevic Brigade was in
8 Novi Travnik and the Bobovac Brigade was in Travnik.
9 Mr. Bobovac was born and lived in Vares with his
11 Q. Now, again, with regard to Mr. Bobovac, did
12 the municipal authorities have to approve his
13 appointment to the chief of the artillery Brigade --
14 excuse me, to the chief of the headquarters in the
15 Bobovac Brigade?
16 A. The municipal authorities did not need to
17 provide approval for the chief staff of the Bobovac
18 Brigade because this was again not a command position.
19 Q. How about the position on No. 2 for the chief
20 intelligence in the Bobovac Brigade, Mr. Mijocevic?
21 Did the municipal authorities have to approve that?
22 A. No, they did not. This is another duty in
23 the command and it is not a command responsibility or
24 duty, it is an expert position.
25 Q. Would your explanation be the same with
1 regard to Position No. 3 in the anti-aircraft defence
2 regarding Mr. Jorgic?
3 A. Yes, it is the same. It's another expert
4 position, and not a command position.
5 Q. Now, if we could just go back with, --
6 Mr. Usher, if I could give the witness again Exhibit
7 456/64, which is the order of 20 November 1992.
8 Now, turning our attention back to 456/64,
9 you just stated in the transcript that this order is
10 unique. There are no multiple examples of this kind.
11 I think I quoted you correctly from the transcript
12 concerning this. The transcript will reflect it, but I
13 think that's your quote.
14 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, the witness said
15 that there are no other orders of this kind. That is
16 the only type of this type.
17 JUDGE JORDA: Continue, Mr. Kehoe.
18 MR. KEHOE:
19 Q. You also noted that there were no orders of
20 Blaskic dismissing Brigade Commanders without the
21 approval of the municipal authorities. Isn't that your
23 A. Yes, the Commander, General Blaskic, could
24 not dismiss a Brigade Commander without the approval of
25 municipal authorities. He could have sent an order,
1 but I know that in practice such orders were not
2 carried out. I know an example of that kind.
3 Q. Well, let's talk about that. Let's go to
4 Exhibit 456/22. This is also a Defence exhibit,
5 counsel. I am not sure, but if we could -- I know it's
6 in 456/22.
7 Now this is a battle order that, I think, was
8 discussed. I know it was discussed during your direct
9 examination with Mr. Nobilo. It is a battle order
10 signed by the accused and authorised by the accused. I
11 am not positive that is his signature, but you
12 authenticated this document in your direct.
13 Nevertheless, it's dated the 17th of April, 1993, at
14 23.45 hours. Do you remember this order, Brigadier?
15 A. Mr. President, I do remember this order. The
16 text of the order was written by me upon orders from
17 General Blaskic, and I signed it upon his authority.
18 Q. Now, this battle order gives instructions to
19 the Ban Jelacic Brigade and it -- and turn to number
20 three, it gives particular instructions to Fojnica;
21 isn't that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. It says, "To Fojnica, must secure your left
24 flank and launch an attack on Dusina or break through
25 to Sebesic"?
1 A. Yes, that is what it says.
2 Q. Now, let me give you another order and this
3 is a new document.
4 THE REGISTRAR: This is 487, 487A for the
5 English version.
6 MR. KEHOE: Again, Mr. President, these will
7 all be translated into French, we just don't have them
8 at this point through translation.
9 Q. Now, Brigadier, this is yet another order
10 written on the 18th of April, 1993, at 01.40 hours that
11 was written by you, wasn't it?
12 A. According to the initials and the text of
13 this order, I do remember writing it upon permission
14 from General Blaskic.
15 Q. It goes to the Commander of the Fojnica HVO
16 battalion, does it not? That's the instructions to
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Who was the Commander of the HVO battalion in
21 A. I remember the sir name, Mr. Tuka.
22 Q. His first name was Stjepan Tuka, wasn't it?
23 A. I think it was Stjepan, I am quite sure it
24 was Tuka, Stjepan Tuka, yes.
25 Q. Now tell us about this, Brigadier, this was a
1 particular order for the Fojnica battalion to support
2 the Ban Jelacic Brigade on the Ban Jelacic's Brigade
3 left flank; isn't that right?
4 A. From the assignment defined here, yes.
5 Q. Stjepan Tuka refused to comply with this
6 order, didn't he?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. That caused significant problems in the
9 Central Bosnia Operative Zone headquarters, didn't it?
10 A. Yes, it caused problems because at the time
11 the document was written on the 18th of April, there
12 were very fierce battles in Busovaca, Vitez and
13 Kiseljak and that was the reason why that order was
14 addressed to the Commander in Fojnica, to link forces
15 so as to defend the territories of Busovaca, Vitez and
17 Q. Brigadier, the Commander, Tuka,
18 insubordination was very well known within the
19 headquarters, wasn't it?
20 A. Yes. The commander of this battalion refused
21 to carry out the order.
22 Q. In a time of war, that is a significant
23 matter; isn't it?
24 A. In the situation we were in, it is a very,
25 very bad thing that he did.
1 Q. Now, when this order was issued, there was no
2 fighting going on in Fojnica, was there?
3 A. No, there were no battles in Fojnica, but
4 assistance was coming to the BH army forces, who were
5 waging the war in Busovaca, was coming through there,
6 and there was a threat of Busovaca, Vitez and Kiseljak
8 Q. The assignment given to Tuka and his
9 battalion, in part, was to secure the village of
11 A. Yes, yes, to secure the village of Dusina,
12 and to advance towards Busovaca stables and link up
13 with forces defending Sebesic. I can show this area to
14 you on the model.
15 Q. Just to clarify the point, Brigadier, the
16 Dusina that is reflected in your order to commander
17 Tuka is not the Dusina that is in the Busovaca
18 municipality, lest the record should confuse the two;
19 isn't that right?
20 A. Yes, yes, Dusina is a village in the
21 territory of the municipality of Fojnica.
22 Q. Now, after this order and Tuka's refusal to
23 comply, -- let me turn to the next document, Mr. Usher
24 -- you issued another order or drafted another order
25 for Colonel Blaskic.
1 THE REGISTRAR: This is 488, 488A for the
2 English version.
3 MR. KEHOE:
4 Q. Again, Brigadier, in the lower left-hand
5 corner are your initials; are they not?
6 A. Yes, I do remember the text of this document.
7 Q. This is sent in what fashion?
8 A. It should have been sent by packet.
9 Q. Well, you would agree with me, Brigadier,
10 that the order sent on 0140 hours that we talked about,
11 as well as this order sent on the 19th at 1800 hours,
12 was sent by packet, and they deal with the combat plans
13 for the Fojnica battalion; don't they?
14 A. The order that we have here is a warning to
15 the commander of the Fojnica battalion that he has to
16 comply with the orders that he receives from his
17 superior command.
18 Q. Well, suffice it to say that you were giving
19 combat orders over the packet system where you
20 specifically told the Fojnica battalion where to deploy
21 the HVO troops; isn't that right?
22 A. In the absolutely impossible situation that
23 we were in at that time, when the situation on the
24 battle front was so grave, we sent only the minimum
25 amount of information by packet that we had to send to
1 the unit commander for him to be able to carry out his
3 Q. The bottom line, again Brigadier, is that in
4 the order that we were talking about, you sent over the
5 packet system an order for Tuka to deploy his troops
6 towards Dusina; isn't that right?
7 A. To deploy his forces towards Dusina, and to
8 control the area towards Sebesic, which is at least 20
9 kilometres away; so there isn't much precision there.
10 JUDGE JORDA: Go directly to the question,
11 please, Mr. Kehoe. There is an order that was sent to
12 the Fojnica battalion, we understand that. We are not
13 contesting it. There is the order of 19 April, what
14 connection are you making? What is the argument that
15 you want to bring out in order to allow the witness to
17 I would like to finish up, before we take our
18 break I would like to finish this theme, having
19 appointments and dismissals of officials with or
20 without authorisation; otherwise we're going to stop
21 this and move to another subject. We can go a little
22 bit longer, but not much more.
23 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, with regard to the
24 appointment and dismissal of people, we have a ways to
25 go on that, especially on this particular subject. But
1 before we go on with that, I would like to clarify a
2 series of questions that was set up, asked by
3 Mr. Nobilo, if I may, Mr. President, and then if that
4 is a convenient time for a break.
5 Q. During questions by Mr. Nobilo you told
6 Mr. Nobilo that --
7 JUDGE JORDA: I still haven't quite
8 understood what was the purpose of these two documents
9 487 and 488. What is the question? I haven't got the
10 question. We were talking about Dusina, whether this
11 was the real or the wrong Dusina. I would like this to
12 be clear. You presented this document, 487, it's an
13 order given to Stjepan Tuka of Fojnica, and then you
14 took out 488. What is the question? Before you
15 respond to Mr. Nobilo, if you don't clarify that, we're
16 not going to understand anything.
17 MR. KEHOE: Sure.
18 Q. With regard to this document on the 19th of
19 April 1993, that you have before you, Brigadier,
20 another reminder was sent to the commander of the
21 Fojnica battalion, Stjepan Tuka, to comply with the
22 orders issued by the commander of the Ban Jelacic
23 brigade; isn't that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Tuka refused to comply again with this
1 reminder; didn't he?
2 A. Yes, he refused.
3 Q. What did Blaskic do when Tuka refused to
4 comply both with the first order on the 18th to move
5 towards either Sebesic or Dusina, or his refusal to
6 comply with the 19th reminder order? What did Blaskic
8 A. Because of the seriousness of the situation,
9 we were at the time in Busovaca, Vitez, and Kiseljak,
10 General Blaskic issued an order to dismiss that
12 Q. Because of the seriousness of the situation,
13 because Blaskic viewed this as serious, he dismissed
14 Tuka; didn't he?
15 A. General Blaskic issued an order on dismissal,
16 and I will explain how it all ended.
17 MR. HAYMAN: Can the witness explain, Mr.
19 MR. KEHOE:
20 Q. You're welcome to explain, Brigadier.
21 A. Mr. President, after the commander of the
22 Fojnica battalion failed to carry out the military
23 orders he received from General Blaskic, and because of
24 the seriousness of the situation, General Blaskic wrote
25 an order to dismiss him.
1 The drafting of that order was done upon
2 consultation with political representatives who exerted
3 their influence on political representatives in Fojnica
4 for this dismissal. However, the dismissal didn't take
5 place immediately.
6 As far as I am informed, they held meetings,
7 they had talks about it, whether it should be done or
8 not; and after pressure on the part of top politicians
9 and the leadership of Herceg-Bosna was brought to bear
10 on political officials in Fojnica, only then did the
11 replacement take place, and after this procedure Tuka
12 was dismissed and replaced.
13 MR. KEHOE: Well, Mr. President, we will get
14 into that after the break, with the Court's permission.
15 JUDGE JORDA: Very well, we will have a break
16 until 11.40.
17 --- Recess taken at 11.20 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 11.47 a.m.
19 JUDGE JORDA: Please have the accused brought
21 (The accused entered court)
22 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Kehoe.
23 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. Talking about Mr. Tuka and Blaskic's order to
25 dismiss Tuka, let us take a look at 456/52. And before
1 we get to that, if we can give this particular document
2 first, give that to the witness and we will hand out
3 another exhibit, because we will be using them at the
4 same time.
5 THE REGISTRAR: This is 489, 489A for the
6 French version and B for the English version.
7 MR. KEHOE: 489, again, Mr. President, has
8 yet to be translated into French and will be so. I
9 take that back, we have accomplished the French
10 translation. I apologise, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE JORDA: You are so used to there not
12 being a French translation, it is becoming an automatic
13 reflex. You see, I actually have a French translation
15 MR. KEHOE: The translation section is about
16 to kill us all.
17 Q. Let us start first with the new exhibit
18 before we move to Blaskic's order, and this is a letter
19 from Stjepan Tuka. Have you seen this letter before?
20 A. I haven't seen this letter from Stjepan Tuka
22 Q. Do you recognise Mr. Tuka's signature?
23 A. I do recognise. No, I do not. I'm sorry --
24 the interpreter didn't understand it. Was it yes or
1 Q. You do not recognise? There was some
2 confusion in the interpretation.
3 A. I do not recognise Mr. Tuka's signature.
4 Q. Let's just read this letter briefly, and I
5 think it's on the ELMO. The 20th of April, it comes
6 from the Busovaca Nikola Subic-Zrinski Brigade, the 3rd
7 Fojnica Battalion, to the attention of Commander
8 Tihomir Blaskic.
9 "Dear Colonel: I feel obliged to respond to
10 your warning to comply with orders. Two years ago when
11 I took on the obligation to organise to protect the
12 Croatian people in the municipality of Fojnica, I was
13 aware of what I was getting into. I, therefore, always
14 kept in mind the preservation of peace in the region
15 and thereby the lives of the people and their property.
16 "I am prepared to answer for everything I
17 have done so far and accept any punishment, regardless
18 of its gravity; but I want the Croatian people to try
19 me, and not some, 'saviours', of the Croatian people.
20 "I cannot blindly carry out some of the
21 orders which directly introduce war into Fojnica and
22 which have been imposed on us without prior
23 consultation with those of us who best know the
24 situation here.
25 "I know that you get information from Fojnica
1 from people who portray a completely different picture
2 from the real one. I implement the orders which I am
3 able to carry out, and do the best I can to execute
4 orders which are impossible to implement.
5 "Please do not take my response as
6 justification for not implementing some of the orders.
7 I request you to urgently carry out your threat
8 regarding replacement and appoint someone capable of
9 carrying out all orders.
10 "As for the responsibility, I have already
11 mentioned that I am prepared to accept it, as well.
12 However, I am not prepared to bring misery to the
13 people I am responsible for and to answer for that
14 either to my conscience or to the very same people."
15 Now, let us turn our attention to Exhibit
16 456/52. Do you see that exhibit, Brigadier? If I
17 could put that on the ELMO, 456/52. It is on the
18 ELMO. Okay.
19 This is an order from Blaskic dated 20 April
20 1993. Do you have that, Brigadier?
21 A. I do, I do, I have it.
22 Q. It is sent to the commander of the Nikola
23 Subic-Zrinski Brigade of Busovaca, the commander of the
24 3rd Fojnica Battalion of the Nikola Subic-Zrinski
25 Brigade in Fojnica.
1 "Command: I hereby dismiss Mr. Stjepan Tuka
2 from the post of commander of the 3rd Battalion of the
3 Nikola Subic-Zrinski Brigade in Busovaca because of his
4 failure to carry out his combat missions and appoint
5 Mr. Drago Simunic from Fojnica in his place.
6 I am authorising Mr. D. Simunic fully with
7 regard to the running and commanding of the 3rd
8 Battalion. The deadline for the execution of this
9 command shall be three hours after its receipt. Every
10 act contrary to this command shall entail criminal
11 responsibility. Mr. Stjepan Tuka, the previous
12 commander of the 3rd Battalion and Mr. Drago Simunic,
13 the new commander of the 3rd Battalion, shall be
14 responsible to me in case of failure of execution of
15 this command."
16 Do you recall this order, Brigadier?
17 A. I do recall that this order was written in
18 this way and sent to the address indicated.
19 Q. It says that Mr. Tuka is dismissed
20 immediately; doesn't it?
21 A. Yes, that is what it says, and I said that
22 because of the person's failure to comply with orders,
23 the commander issued this order on his dismissal.
24 Q. Let us turn to 456/54, which is an order that
25 is written by Blaskic some 25 minutes after the
1 dismissal of Tuka, again, on the 20th of April 1993 at
3 A. I apologise, Mr. Kehoe said after Tuka's
4 replacement, but it should be after the order was
5 issued on his replacement.
6 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, this is an
7 example when the question contains an allegation that
8 is not correct. Mr. Tuka was not replaced for a whole
9 month-and-a-half after the order was issued; so that
10 the question should not contain allegations which
11 simply are not true.
12 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Kehoe.
13 MR. KEHOE: The fact of the matter is, the
14 Court will be able to make that determination when we
15 complete the review of the documents that we are about
16 to go through, and whether or not Tuka was replaced,
17 and when he was replaced, and the powers of Colonel
18 Blaskic to dismiss him and replace him.
19 MR. HAYMAN: Your Honour, Mr. Kehoe knows
20 what the underlying facts are, he has an ethical
21 obligation not to misrepresent or mislead the Court in
22 that regard.
23 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, the documents will
24 speak for themselves. The documents coming up will
25 dismiss Tuka, clearly will dismiss Tuka, and the Court
1 can cull from the documents and make the factual
3 This particular document that we are turning
4 to, Exhibit 456/54, is simply written 25 minutes after
5 the dismissal order for Tuka is written. That was the
6 lead in from one document to the next document, when
7 and where and what happened in Fojnica. I leave it to
8 the Court to decide after the review of the documents.
9 JUDGE JORDA: I suggest we not waste any more
10 time, Mr. Kehoe, continue.
11 MR. KEHOE:
12 Q. In exhibit 456/54, after the dismissal order
13 of Tuka was issued, Blaskic puts the 3rd Fojnica
14 Battalion, which was in the Nikola Subic-Zrinski
15 Brigade in Busovaca, and subordinates it to the Ban
16 Jelacic commander in Kiseljak; doesn't he?
17 A. Yes, he does. If I can explain the
18 circumstances under which this document was created.
19 This order on subordination of this battalion
20 to the Ban Jelacic Brigade was due to the gravity of
21 the situation and the fact that it was cut off and our
22 inability to directly have contact with them. This is
23 why the commander of the Operative Zone, at the date
24 and time indicated here, issued the order which we have
25 before us.
1 Q. Now, sir, let us turn to Exhibit 456/53.
2 Mr. Dubuisson, just for clarity sake, in the
3 record, was there a French copy of 456/53?
4 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, I think there should be
6 MR. KEHOE: If not, I have copies of that. I
7 am not sure when 456 was introduced into evidence. All
8 the French copies are there, if not, we have them.
9 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Give me the French
10 version, please. In any case, if you read it, it will
11 be interpreted and everyone will understand what's
12 going on. Go ahead.
13 MR. KEHOE:
14 Q. Now, this Document 456/53 is a document
15 written by Stjepan Tuka to the Ban Jelacic Brigade on
16 the 20th of April of 1993.
17 It says, "Information on the replacement of
18 the 39rd Fojnica battalion Commander. With reference
19 to the strictly confidential order of the Commander of
20 the Central Bosnia Operative Zone, 014417/93 of 20
21 April 1993, regarding the replacement of a current
22 present Commander of the 3rd Fojnica Battalion
23 Commander, Mr. Stjepan Tuka, son of Augustin and the
24 appointment of a new Commander, Dragan Simunic, son of
25 Ante, we hereby inform you of the following:
1 A meeting of the 3rd Battalion Command will
2 be held on 20 April, 1993, at 1600 hours at which the
3 Commander shall be replaced. You will be informed of
4 the results of the meeting in due course."
5 Now my first question, Brigadier is, do you
6 recognise that stamp? And do you recognise the
8 A. This document did not arrive at the Central
9 Bosnia Operative Zone command, but I can explain this
10 document, if I may? The Commander of the Fojnica
11 Battalion, which was subordinated to the Ban Jelacic
12 Brigade, and was under the direct orders to work
13 together with him, is reporting on the actions that he
14 is taking with respect to the dismissal on replacement
15 of the Battalion Commander. It refers in the last
16 paragraph to a meeting which shall take place. And
17 then in the end he says, "You will be informed of the
18 results of the meeting in due course." What happened
19 in that meeting was that the replacement did not take
21 Mr. President, this is a very good example of
22 how, in practice, the civilian authorities did have
23 influence on the appointments of Commanders and the
24 amount of influence which they had in appointments and
25 dismissals. Mr. Tuka, himself, should not have taken a
1 decision not to carry out the order and we saw from his
2 letter that he knew what the situation was and what
3 they were supposed to do in the territory of their
4 municipality, but the municipal authorities had
5 exercised pressure on him and they supported him in his
6 refusal to carry out the order.
7 JUDGE JORDA: We have to find a way out of
8 this, Mr. Kehoe. These are two completely two
9 different interpretations. Either it is the last
10 meeting he attended before he gave his position to his
11 replacement or, as the witness is saying, things
12 happened differently. We have to go forward and see
13 what happens next. All right show the next document,
14 if you will, please.
15 THE REGISTRAR: This is 490, 490A for the
16 English version.
17 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I won't be
18 categorical on this, but I don't think we have a French
19 copy translation on this one.
20 JUDGE JORDA: It doesn't matter, go ahead.
21 MR. KEHOE:
22 Q. Now you were just discussing, Brigadier, the
23 meeting that took place and is this document a
24 reflection of that meeting that was held on the 20th of
25 April, 1993?
1 A. Could you please allow me just to read
2 through it because I have not seen it before.
3 Q. Certainly, certainly.
4 A. From the text you can see that the decision
5 was taken as a conclusion of the meeting which was
6 referred to in the previous document.
7 MR. HAYMAN: I want a note for the record,
8 Mr. President. We've never been given this document.
9 We've repeatedly made motions for violations of Rule
10 68. That is the Prosecutor's duty to give us
11 exculpatory information. The Court has never imposed a
12 sanction based on those motions. It is incredible that
13 we have never been given this. I want to say that for
14 the record.
15 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, counsel can argue
16 all he wants whether or not he thinks this is Rule 68
17 material. I want the Court to make a full decision
18 concerning Tuka and what Blaskic did on Tuka and
19 whether or not the Court considers this particular
20 document exculpatory, but I reject categorically, the
21 statements by counsel concerning any Rule 68
22 applicability order to this document.
23 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, Mr. President,
24 here in the HKD Napredak, is the culture association of
25 Croats in Fojnica and they and the unit command are all
1 rejecting and this is the crown document proving that
2 the chain of command was broken.
3 JUDGE JORDA: Do you have the exact
4 translation of this document, please? I would like
5 someone to read it and it will be interpreted. I would
6 like to hear all of the nuances that are in this text.
7 MR. KEHOE: I will read it, Mr. President.
8 MR. HAYMAN: Could we have the original
9 read? And read from the --
10 MR. KEHOE: Give it to the translators and
11 the translators can read it, that would be fine.
12 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, I think that's how it
13 should be done. All right, Mr. Nobilo, read it. And
14 as you're reading, I'll get a specific and exact
15 translation of all the details of the document and then
16 we can respond to the comments that were made. Go
17 ahead, Mr. Nobilo.
18 MR. NOBILO: I am reading the header:
19 "Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatian Community of
20 Herceg-Bosna, Croatian Defence Council, command of the
21 3rd battalion of the Ban Josip Jelacic Brigade." The
22 reference number I am not going to read.
23 "Date: 20 April 1993. Defence military
24 secret and strictly confidential. It is addressed to
25 the Vitez Central Bosnia Operative Zone command and Ban
1 Josip Jelacic Brigade command in Kiseljak. And the
2 text runs as follows:
3 "With reference to your Order No. 01-4-417/93
4 of 20 April 1993, the command of the 3rd Fojnica
5 Battalion has reached the following decision:
6 "Your Order No. 01-4-417/93 of 20 April 1993
7 is being completely rejected due to the entire work
8 being accomplished so far and the complexity of the
9 current situation in the 3rd Fojnica Battalion. The
10 Croatian people of Fojnica support per say. This
11 unanimous decision is supported by the Croatian people
12 of Fojnica." It was signed by 3rd Fojnica Battalion
13 command. That is the first signature. The second,
14 Fojnica HVO, which is the executive body of the
15 municipality. Three, Croatian Democratic Union, which
16 is the political party. Franciscan monastery, that is
17 the church. Napredak. This is the HKD, issues of
18 Croatian Cultural Association called Napredak.
19 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you, Mr. Nobilo.
20 Mr. Kehoe.
21 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, let's
22 continue through the balance of these documents.
23 JUDGE JORDA: Yes.
24 MR. KEHOE:
25 Q. The next two documents, if I may hand these
2 Now the first document -- I'm sorry.
3 THE REGISTRAR: The first document -- the
4 first document is 491, 491A for the French version and
5 B for the English and the second is 492, 492A for the
6 English version.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
8 MR. KEHOE:
9 Q. Now the first document, Brigadier, is a
10 statement that came from the Fojnica Municipal Assembly
11 and we'll read it as follows. This is Exhibit 491.
12 "At a meeting held on 20 April 1993, during
13 which the current military and political situation, and
14 the situation in the region of Central Bosnia were
15 discussed, as well as the recent order of the command
16 of the Central Bosnia Operative Zone regarding the
17 replacement of the Commander of the armed forces of the
18 Fojnica HVO, Mr. Stjepan Tuka, we hereby issue the
19 following statement:
20 "In view that Mr. Stjepan Tuka's contribution
21 so far in maintaining peace and a common existence of a
22 Croatian and Muslim peoples, as well as the dignity of
23 his own people, we give full support to Mr. Stjepan
24 Tuka and all those supporting the policy of a
25 legitimate representatives of a Croatian people in
1 Fojnica. We hope that the Croatian people will be at
2 the same level as their political and military
3 leadership, and that with their support, and by
4 recognising the opinion given in this statement, and by
5 understanding the gravity of a current situation they
6 will continue to build the joint life which can only
7 contribute to the well being of both peoples.
8 Signed, President of the Municipal Assembly,
9 President of the Fojnica SDA, Commander of the Fojnica
10 Municipal TO. The Fojnica Islamic Community and
11 chairman of the Preporad KDM."
12 In conjunction with that, we turn to 492, the
13 press release on this meeting. Which reads -- and if
14 we could put that on the ELMO. It is also dated the
15 20th of April.
16 "Following unpleasant occurrences in the
17 region of Central Bosnia, we raise our voices against
18 any crime perpetrated in the name of an ideology and
19 people against any human being. The living determine
20 and direct history. Despite all those who claim that
21 the Muslim and Croatian people cannot live side by
22 side, we state that according to our life and
23 experience so far, a life together is possible and
24 without such a life there is no future. We warn all
25 those responsible that they will be held immediately
1 responsible before the people in history. If they do
2 not cease this pointless conflict immediately,
3 therefore, we beseech all those who are concerned about
4 our souls not to defend us from ourselves."
5 Again the notations are of the Fojnica
6 Municipal Assembly, the representatives of military
7 units of both people. The Fojnica Franciscan
8 Monastery, the Fojnica Islamic community and two lines
9 that just say, "Fojnica, Fojnica Cultural Association
10 and the Islamic Cultural Association."
11 Now, my first question, Brigadier, is: Did
12 you see these documents and were they forwarded to the
14 A. I did not see these documents, and from the
15 contents of the documents, I see that there are no
16 reference numbers which we would have placed on them if
17 they had arrived at the Operative Zone command, so I
18 cannot say that they have ever arrived there.
19 Q. Blaskic responded to all of this, didn't he?
20 A. I do not know whether General Blaskic
21 responded to this, but on 20 April, and due to the
22 serious situation and fierce attacks in Busovaca,
23 Vitez, he was involved in those issues and he contacted
24 with the HVO top in order to have his order on the
25 dismissal of Tuka carried out because by that time it
1 had not been carried out yet.
2 Q. Well, let's turn our attention to another new
3 exhibit. Mr. Usher.
4 JUDGE JORDA: Is this the same subject?
5 MR. KEHOE: Same subject, Mr. President.
6 Last document on the subject.
7 JUDGE JORDA: About Fojnica as well?
8 MR. KEHOE: Yes, the last document on the
9 subject, Mr. President.
10 THE REGISTRAR: This is 493, 493A for the
11 French version and B for the English version.
12 MR. KEHOE:
13 Q. Now, Brigadier, taking a look at this
14 document, does this document reflect the name and the
15 Broj number or the number coming from the Central
16 Bosnia Operative Zone command and that being Commander
17 Blaskic. I refer you to the No. 01-5 -- 5 being for
18 the month of May, 167/93. Does that reflect a number
19 coming from the headquarters of the Central Bosnia
20 Operative Zone?
21 A. In that period that was the way things were
22 registered, so I assume that this was registered with
23 the Operative Zone command.
24 Q. Was this a document that was sent in the
25 packet communication system?
1 A. By superiors it looks as if has been sent by
2 packet, but I cannot see who is behind it. It may have
3 been produced through photocopying, at least that is
4 the copy I am looking at.
5 Q. Oh, no doubt. But I am talking about the
6 actual print, it would appear to be the use of the
7 packet communications that other orders going down to
8 the Fojnica command that were used to communicate with
9 the Fojnica Battalion and to Mr. Tuka; isn't that
11 A. Based on the number and appearance of the
12 header, those are the facts which lead me to believe
13 that this document may have been drafted at the
14 Operative Zone command. However, there is no name or
15 signature to see who the actual drafter of the document
17 Q. Okay, sir.
18 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, this document is
19 incomplete. This document is incomplete. Something is
20 missing here. It has the first and last pages, but
21 there is something there. It is not in a logical way.
22 Even if it was received by the packet communication, I
23 think there is a portion of this document missing.
24 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Kehoe, it's true. The
25 actual impression of this photocopy that something was
1 put together here. It is kind as if a collific collage
2 was made. Yes, Mr. Kehoe, two things were put together
3 here, were they not?
4 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, in a private
5 session outside the presence of the Brigadier, we can
6 explain where this document came from, how it came into
7 the possession of the Office of the Prosecutor in order
8 to authenticate this document and we can pull up the
9 original that was provided to the Office of the
10 Prosecutor from the vault should the Chamber so
11 desire. But if we want to talk about some preliminary
12 matters concerning this document, and the folds, etc,
13 we would like to do that in private session outside
14 with the presence of the Brigadier.
15 With all due respect, Brigadier.
16 JUDGE JORDA: You're talking about the
17 accused or the witness here?
18 MR. KEHOE: The witness, Mr. President, I'm
20 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, the Defence does
21 not dispute the authenticity of this document, but we
22 say that we do not have the integral document. In
23 other words, we recognise it's authenticity, but
24 dispute its completeness.
25 JUDGE JORDA: Is it true, there is a part
2 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, this is what we
3 were provided. If counsel has got the full document
4 that was sent by Blaskic, then he should provide it.
5 This is what we have. Once again, I offer to Mr.
6 President, and Your Honours, I will pull up what the
7 original is in the vault and provide to it the Court
8 for review.
9 MR. HAYMAN: Mr. President, the Defence has
10 never seen Exhibits 490, 491, 492 or 493 before.
11 JUDGE JORDA: Well, we understood that, Mr.
12 Hayman. You are saying that that falls under Rule 68.
13 But sometimes you've got a very broad interpretation of
14 Rule 68. It's not because a document has been provided
15 and that it contradicts a statement of a witness that
16 it automatically means that it is a document that
17 should have been provided under Rule 68.
18 Therefore, for the time being, I was waiting
19 personally for the end of the sequence and to see
20 whether Mr. Stjepan Tuka was or was not dismissed from
21 his post despite the recriminations expressed by the
22 municipality. I think that is what the discussion is
23 centring around. Mr. Hayman?
24 MR. HAYMAN: I won't belabour the point. I
25 think it would have been profitable, perhaps to show
1 this series of documents to Brigadier Duncan. To some
2 of the other professional western military officers who
3 came in the Prosecutor's case and ask them: Is this
4 how the unity of chain of command is supposed to
5 function? Is this how a Commander is supposed to be
6 able to exercise his powers? Or, rather, is it
7 something else?
8 JUDGE JORDA: That's the Prosecutor's work,
9 Mr. Hayman. Mr. Hayman, don't do Mr. Kehoe's work.
10 Mr. Kehoe has apparently preferred to submit this to
11 the witness. Let me summarise things, Mr. Hayman, and
12 then I will give the floor back to you.
13 For the time being, what we're talking about
14 is something very, very specific. We have been talking
15 about it since yesterday. We are at a very exact point
16 of knowing whether Colonel Blaskic, who was the
17 Commander of the Operative Zone, had the power to
18 appoint or to dismiss operational Commanders with all
19 nuances that were expressed by the witness and which
20 have been put into the record. Did he have that
22 Mr. Kehoe for the past hour has been trying
23 to show to the witness that a specific case, that is
24 the dismissal of Mr. Stjepan Tuka, the accused, who at
25 the time was Colonel Blaskic, did not need and did not
1 have a legal administrative or military need to consult
2 with the political municipal authorities. You are
3 saying the opposite, you are saying, as is the witness,
4 you said that both the Documents 490 and 91 really
6 But you said I didn't want to say anything
7 because I was waiting for the sequence, the end of what
8 was going on here. And then afterwards you could draw
9 any conclusions or arguments you want from this
10 sequence, but I think it's important for the Judges,
11 that is that they should have an idea of the answer to
12 the question and know whether the accused was able to
13 dismiss Mr. Tuka without having the opinion of the
14 municipal local authorities. That's what we're talking
16 Now we have to look at the document. You
17 raised a new question when you said that this document
18 is one's whose authenticity we're not contesting, but
19 you thought it was incomplete. And simply reviewing
20 this to say that you are right, it is incomplete, and
21 the Prosecutor admitted that. That's where we are.
22 Let's try to move forward.
23 Mr. Hayman, if you're not satisfied with my
24 summary, although I thought it was clear.
25 MR. HAYMAN: I think we are speaking past one
1 another. All we are saying with respect to Rule 68 --
2 -- JUDGE JORDA: I'm sure that's true.
3 MR. HAYMAN: The Prosecutor has been urging
4 the Court, upon the Court, the position that Colonel
5 Blaskic did not have to consult with political or
6 municipal authorities in the process of replacing
7 commanders. These documents speak for themselves. Not
8 only did he have to consult --
9 JUDGE JORDA: No, not at all, Mr. Hayman, not
10 at all. It's not because there was a meeting. You
11 want me to answer, I really don't like to, but it's not
12 -- because civilian representatives were there to
13 discuss things that didn't come to agreement, that
14 would automatically mean that in the thesis in the
15 Prosecutor's statement that he didn't have to consult
16 with the authorities. You have to look at
17 administrative and legal and military aspects of
18 consultations. You cannot prevent people from doing
19 that, and that's why deliberately I was waiting for the
20 final document.
21 MR. HAYMAN: For the record, I just, if I
22 could finish, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE JORDA: For the record.
24 MR. HAYMAN: Exhibit 490 is signed by
25 civilian and municipal authorities. In Exhibit 490,
1 those civilian and municipal authorities rejected the
2 decision of Colonel Blaskic to replace Stjepan Tuka,
3 thereby continuing a process during which the issue of
4 whether an order would be carried out or not was
5 resolved some weeks later, a process that involved not
6 only the military quote, unquote, chain of command, but
7 civilian, religious, cultural entities. That was what
8 I wanted to say for the record. Thank you for hearing
9 us out, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Hayman, for the record, as
11 you said it, you are saying that. Please conceive, I'm
12 not taking sides, conceive there might be another
13 approach. You cannot prevent a civilian community, I'm
14 speaking in general terms, you can't prevent civilian
15 population and its representatives from feeling moved
16 by a decision.
17 If tomorrow, for example, an authority in
18 France or the United States or Egypt or any other
19 country were to take a decision which does not please
20 the population, you cannot prevent the authorities from
21 saying that the decision does not appear just to them,
22 or it appears illegal to them, you cannot prevent that,
23 that is not the question.
24 We are discussing whether the accused, yes or
25 no, had the duty, the obligation to consult with the
1 civilian authorities. We have recorded your comments.
2 Now I would like us to go on.
3 Mr. Nobilo, I'll give you the floor; but if
4 you're going to take up the same arguments, I'm going
5 to interrupt you immediately. Go ahead.
6 MR. NOBILO: It's a different argument, Mr.
7 President. These documents show that the decision of
8 Commander Blaskic on going to war and on dismissal was
9 not carried out. That's all. And they prove that if
10 he doesn't consult the municipal authorities he cannot
11 carry them out. Thank you.
12 JUDGE JORDA: That's your thesis, and the
13 Judges have noted it, as they will note the thesis of
14 the Prosecutor.
15 This is the last document, and we have noted
16 it is not complete. What is the question that you,
17 what is your question?
18 MR. KEHOE: Preliminarily, Mr. President, I
19 think this is complete, and we will gladly bring up the
20 original and show it to the Court. Nevertheless, we
21 will move on.
22 Q. This is a document that comes from the
23 Central Bosnian Operative Zone command dated 7 May 1993
24 at 15.00 hours, and the subject is the announcement to
25 the commander of the Busovaca Nikola Subic-Zrinski
1 Brigade to the commander of the 3rd Battalion of the
2 Fojnica Nikola Subic-Zrinski Brigade.
3 "On 6 May 1993 we received announcement
4 number 7-01-170/93, from the legally non-existent HVO
5 command of Fojnica municipality. The self-proclaimed
6 commander, Stjepan Tuka, stating that, quote, that the
7 Fojnica municipality HVO command has made the decision
8 that the current command of the 3rd Battalion is to
9 continue to activities in the same composition and with
10 Commander Stjepan Tuka as its head with regard to the
11 above mentioned announcements.
12 1. The institution of the HVO command of
13 municipalities does not exist within the legal system
14 of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna. Municipal
15 Croatian Defence Councils were set up as municipal
16 civilian authorities with a statutory decision of the
17 municipal executive authority and the municipal
18 administration." Citing the official Gazettes of the
19 Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna, number 91.
20 "The foundations of the armed forces were
21 laid, and its structure and system of command and
22 control were determined by a decree on the armed forces
23 of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna," again
24 official Gazette number 692, "and the regulations
25 issued in compliance with this decree.
1 "Based on the above mentioned regulations,
2 the Nikola Subic-Zrinski Brigade is active in the area
3 of the Busovaca Fojnica municipalities when something
4 is unclear. From the above mentioned it can be
5 concluded that the civilian and military authorities
6 are precisely delineated, and the institution of the
7 HVO command of the municipality is both formally and
8 legally contrary to the fundamental regulations of the
9 Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna, i.e. it is not
10 legal, and neither are the decisions it makes.
11 "Pursuant to Article 34 of the decree of the
12 armed forces of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna,
13 Mr. Stjepan Tuka is relieved of his position as
14 commander of the 3rd Battalion of the Nikola
15 Subic-Zrinski Brigade, and a new person has been
16 appointed to perform the duties of commander.
17 "The decision of the so-called HVO command
18 Fojnica municipality for Stjepan Tuka to continue
19 performing the duties of commander of the 3rd Battalion
20 -- next page Mr. Usher, next page -- "Mr. Tuka is to
21 continue performing the duties of commander of the 3rd
22 Battalion is a serious violation of the unified system
23 of command and the obligations to implement decisions,
24 orders and instructions of the superior command.
25 "Such activities are particularly serious in
1 the circumstances of the struggle of the Croatian
2 people for its existence and identity in historic
3 areas. Actions and activities of the so-called command
4 and the self-proclaimed commander give grounds for
5 disciplinary action to be taken and criminal charges to
6 be filed with a competent military Prosecutor, which
7 will be done."
8 Now, Brigadier, are you familiar with the
9 initials in the lower left-hand corner, NS, as the
10 drafter of this document? Or is it not on your copy?
11 A. I do not see the initials on my copy. But I
12 know the initials SV, SHV, those are the initials of
13 the typist, Mrs. Stefica Vinac.
14 Q. Did you know about the issuance of this
15 document by Commander Blaskic?
16 A. I didn't know about the issuance of this
17 document, and I don't know that it was issued by
18 Colonel Blaskic.
19 Q. Well, in this document, this document that
20 came from the command of the Central Bosnian Operative
21 Zone, states quite clearly that the HVO command of the
22 Fojnica municipality is legally non-existent; isn't that
23 correct? And I direct your attention to the first
25 A. The HVO command, as far as I understand the
1 structure as it was at the time, it refers to the
2 command of the civilian authorities, because reference
3 was to the command of the battalion, and the battalion
5 This is rather ambiguous when it says HVO
6 command, because you have seen from the documents when
7 a commander is being dismissed, it is the battalion
8 commander that is being dismissed and not the HVO
9 commander. So, the terms are ambiguous.
10 So, my conclusion would be that this applies
11 to the civilian authorities, that is what can be
12 inferred from the context.
13 Q. Well, Brigadier, let me direct your attention
14 to paragraph 1. Blaskic quite clearly draws a
15 distinction between the municipal civil authorities and
16 the structure and system set up for the armed forces;
17 does he not? Take a quick read at that paragraph.
18 A. Yes, I have looked at the paragraph.
19 Q. And there is a separation, Blaskic discusses
20 a clear separation of powers between the civilian
21 authorities and the armed forces, or the HVO; doesn't
22 he? He cites to the two locations in the Narodni Lists
23 or the Official Gazettes that support his position;
24 isn't that correct?
25 A. Mr. President, I cannot answer this
1 question. But if I can say, the commander of the
2 Operative Zone, General Blaskic, knew exactly the
3 difference between the competencies of the civilian and
4 military authorities. But he was aware of the
5 situation, and that is why we had such instances.
6 This is the first time that he tried to
7 replace a commander without consultations, and we see
8 the kind of problems he came up against. That is what
9 I can say.
10 JUDGE JORDA: The question was much simpler
11 than that, Brigadier. It was a very simple question.
12 It was simply to -- I thought you agreed about
13 paragraph one, that Colonel Blaskic had made the
14 distinction between the military and civilian systems.
15 I don't think we have to go any further than that. Of
16 course if you don't want to answer, you don't have to.
17 Continue Mr. Kehoe.
18 A. Mr. President, I know that General Blaskic
19 knew the difference between the civilian and military
20 chain of command.
21 JUDGE JORDA: Continue, Mr. Kehoe.
22 MR. KEHOE:
23 Q. Brigadier, in the next paragraph Blaskic says
24 that the HVO command of the municipality is not legal,
25 and neither are its decisions. Do you see that?
1 A. I do.
2 Q. And by that, sir, he completely rejects the
3 authority of this body to issue any legally binding
4 decisions on him as the commander of the HVO; isn't
5 that right?
6 A. Please. It says clearly here that in the
7 legal structure of the Croatian community of
8 Herceg-Bosna, and if this is General Blaskic's text,
9 then, in saying this, he wanted to make it clear that
10 he would be the one who would decide on the appointment
11 of commanders. And according to the regulations, that
12 is how it was envisaged, and that is how I read this
14 Q. In the next paragraph he calls upon his
15 authorities, in Article 34 of the Official Gazette that
16 we talked about this morning, which gives him the
17 authority to appoint and dismiss. Do you see that in
18 the first line in number 2?
19 A. I do.
20 Q. And he relieves Stjepan Tuka of his command.
21 A. General Blaskic gave the order for the
22 replacement, in line with the regulations that you have
23 referred to and the authority that he had. He issued
24 that order, and he refers to those provisions in that
25 text, that he was entitled to do that. The General
1 claims that he has the right to do that.
2 Q. According to Article 34 of the Narodni Lists,
3 he does have the legal authority to dismiss Stjepan
4 Tuka; isn't that correct?
5 A. Yes, and that is on the basis of what he
6 wrote the order on his dismissal. But it was not
7 carried out.
8 Q. As we move on to paragraph two, he notes that
9 any challenge to that authority is a serious violation
10 of the unified system of command; do you see that?
11 A. General Blaskic was aware of that, and that
12 is why he issued orders, based on his formal authority.
13 But I explained what happened on the ground; General
14 Blaskic knew that there wasn't a unified system of
15 command, and that military rules were not being
16 respected; that is why we had so many orders and
17 appointments that we have reviewed.
18 Q. Let me clarify this question. Does Blaskic
19 say in this document that any challenge to his
20 authority under Article 34 is a challenge to the
21 unified system of command? Does he say that?
22 A. We can see from the text what the General
24 Q. Any challenge, Brigadier, to that authority,
25 would have been a challenge to his authority prior to
1 the dismissal of Tuka, or in the appointment or
2 dismissal of any commanders at any time; isn't that so?
3 A. Yes, that is so. Any failure to carry out
4 the General's orders is in direct contradiction with
5 the authority that he formally had.
6 Q. And he asserts his authority under Article 34
7 to appoint and dismiss, categorically, as he sees fit;
8 isn't that right?
9 MR. HAYMAN: Your Honour, the document speaks
10 for itself. We could go over every sentence, but
11 what's the point?
12 JUDGE JORDA: I would think that you're
13 right, but we have to recognise that sometimes your
14 witness goes as far as he can in contesting some of the
15 sentences. I would like also to say to Mr. Kehoe that
16 it is self-evident, so let's go on, move faster.
17 MR. KEHOE:
18 Q. The bottom line, Brigadier, is contrary to
19 the wishes of the municipal authorities in Fojnica,
20 Stjepan Tuka was dismissed; correct?
21 A. It is not correct. Let me explain. Stjepan
22 Tuka was replaced after General Blaskic requested
23 assistance from the top level leadership of
24 Herceg-Bosna, the political leadership of Herceg-Bosna.
25 I don't know exactly whom he addressed, was it
1 President Boban, to exert their influence on the
2 municipal authorities, and only then was the decision
3 carried out.
4 JUDGE JORDA: But we're trying here to find
5 the truth, that's what it is about. Was he dismissed
6 or was he not? It's a clear question. Was he or was
7 he not dismissed? According to this document, was he
8 or was he not dismissed?
9 MR. HAYMAN: It was a compound question, Your
11 JUDGE JORDA: I'm asking the witness the
12 question, Mr. Hayman. I have the right to ask the
13 question. I'm sorry.
14 MR. HAYMAN: Mr. Kehoe's question was
15 compound. I'm not objecting to your question, but the
16 earlier question was compound, it had two components.
17 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Kehoe's questions,
18 apparently, to me it seemed whether or not Tuka was
19 dismissed. He said first I don't agree, and then he
20 spoke about commander authority.
21 So, I turn to the witness and ask whether or
22 not he was dismissed, or did he keep his command. You
23 are answering me now.
24 A. Mr. President, the commander of the Fojnica
25 Battalion, Mr. Stjepan Tuka, was dismissed after the
1 commander had issued his order and ensured support of
2 the political authorities.
3 JUDGE JORDA: I understood it, it's been
4 recorded. All right, he was dismissed.
5 I would like to say to you, Mr. Hayman, that
6 you do see that when you very frequently refer to Rule
7 68, you see that a document can, when you refer to Rule
8 68, which is your right, let me point out to you that
9 in support of the document, a document can be read as
10 exculpatory in several ways.
11 A document can go contrary to a witness
12 statement and in favour of the accused, and that same
13 document can go contrary to the accused in favour of a
14 thesis supported by the witness.
15 Therefore, I think it's more complicated than
16 that. The document is a perfect example of what I
18 MR. HAYMAN: I agree with the Court but the
19 wording of Rule 68 requires that if a document is
20 capable of interpretation favourable to the Defence, it
21 must be disclosed.
22 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Hayman, doesn't that
23 language imply a right on the part of the Prosecutor to
24 make precisely that judgement? Shouldn't the Court take
25 the position that, provided the Prosecutor does not act
1 unreasonably, the Prosecutor is entitled, within
2 certain reasonable limits, to make exactly that
3 judgement, as to whether the document is capable of
4 supporting the case for the Defence.
5 Now, the Prosecution takes the view, so I
6 understand the position, that these documents are not
7 reasonably capable of supporting the case for the
9 What the documents show is that the
10 municipality, the civilian authorities, mounted what I
11 would call a political opposition to the implementation
12 of General Blaskic's order. Civilian authorities did
13 not take the position that General Blaskic was not
14 competent in law to issue such an order without prior
15 legal, prior consultation with the municipal civilian
16 authorities. I don't see that in the documents. I
17 don't see that the municipal authorities were taking
18 this position, that, look, you cannot issue an order of
19 this kind without prior consultation with us.
20 If they had taken that position, then I, for
21 one, would have been prepared to understand and
22 empathise more fully with the position which you are
24 MR. HAYMAN: If I may, just very briefly,
25 Your Honour, because I think this is a fruitful
1 question. The position of the Defence, and I think the
2 testimony of the witness has been, there was a legal
3 framework for appointing commanders, but there were
4 extra legal pressures and processes, which were in fact
5 more important than the legal framework.
6 These documents, in the view of the Defence,
7 demonstrate the functioning and coming to bear of
8 pressures through these extra legal channels and
10 To address the question of Rule 68, Your
11 Honour, Rule 68, I submit, imposes an objective
12 standard as to whether something is exculpatory or not.
13 Of course, the Prosecutor makes the, must make some
14 initial determination himself, but ultimately it is an
15 objective standard. It is not a decision that can be
16 delegated, permanently delegated by the Court.
17 JUDGE RIAD: I would just like to stress what
18 the President mentioned before, that in any democratic
19 society, and like the one in Bosnia and Croatia and the
20 one in the United States, there are organisations,
21 there are NGOs who can express their opinion. I don't
22 think that the President of the United States is not,
23 it does not mean that the President is not entitled to
24 take a decision if all the NGOs express their
25 opinions. Organisations can.
1 MR. HAYMAN: I think that is absolutely
2 right, and it is an indication in some ways of a
3 healthy quasi-democratic debate.
4 JUDGE RIAD: Not legally.
5 MR. HAYMAN: What is important here, Your
6 Honours, Mr. Tuka was not replaced during the time
7 period these discussions, consultations, infighting
8 were going on. He was not replaced. Our client's
9 order was not carried out for a period of weeks.
10 And that, I think, is very, very important.
11 That's what we're saying. And perhaps my colleague has
13 JUDGE RIAD: You are right, but these things
14 were decided. The conclusion was that these
15 organisations do not have any binding authority.
16 Whether it took time or not, the result was clear,
18 MR. HAYMAN: But they had the power, Your
20 JUDGE RIAD: To speak.
21 MR. HAYMAN: Not only to speak, Your Honour.
22 Commander Tuka was not replaced during this time period
23 of these dialogues and processes. They had the power
24 to block the order of our client of 20 April 1993.
25 JUDGE RIAD: Let's say there was a dialogue.
1 MR. HAYMAN: But they held the cards, Your
3 JUDGE JORDA: For the time being we're
4 talking about dismissal of Mr. Tuka, and we may later
5 argue as to the results. Perhaps during the time there
6 was a replacement there was another phase, and the
7 accused was aware there was pressure being brought to
8 bear. I don't know that, you have to show it.
9 I think for the time being we will stay with
10 this point, the Judges have expressed their point of
11 view. I simply wanted to say to you, Mr. Hayman, that
12 application for Rule 68 can, for one same document,
13 support the accused, but not necessarily the witness
14 statements. Or vice versa.
15 We usually take our break when people begin
16 to get excited. I think, then, lunch will calm
17 everybody down. We will resume at 2.30
18 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.00 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.50 p.m.
2 JUDGE JORDA: Please resume and have the
3 accused brought in.
4 (The accused entered court)
5 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Kehoe.
6 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour, ready to
8 JUDGE JORDA: That's true, you can't proceed
9 without the witness, you're right.
10 (The witness entered court)
11 JUDGE JORDA: Do you hear me, Brigadier?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, Mr. President, I can hear
14 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Kehoe.
15 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President, Your
16 Honours and Counsel.
17 Q. Good afternoon, Brigadier.
18 A. Good afternoon.
19 Q. Brigadier, during your testimony on direct
20 examination, you gave us some information about orders
21 that were issued by various Commanders. Before I talk
22 to you a little bit about those orders, I would just
23 like to ask you about the training that officers
24 receive, such as yourself, for reserve officer
25 training, what type of training did you receive in the
1 JNA on the writing of orders and what are orders
2 supposed to contain?
3 A. I am prepared to answer your question.
4 Q. Go ahead, sir.
5 A. Okay. Mr. President, Your Honours, the
6 training of officers, reserve officers, of which we
7 have spoken here before, while they are in training in
8 the reserve officers' school, as I mentioned, they were
9 trained to be able to command to the units at the level
10 of platoon or company. In the school, while I went
11 through the training, I was writing, in other words, I
12 was trained to write orders at a level of squad and
13 platoon. This was done in this school and this is what
14 everybody who was in the school was trained to do.
15 As far as the JNA is concerned, I cannot say
16 exactly what was taught in military academy during
17 those four years with respect to writing orders.
18 MR. KEHOE: Well, basically, one of the
19 things that should not be in the order is some language
20 that you discussed in, I believe it was Defence Exhibit
21 293, if the assistance of the witness, if the witness
22 could take a look at that. 293 is an order from
23 Mr. Cerkez, I believe. If I am not mistaken.
24 And the -- is that 293? Mr. President, I am
25 just waiting for the witness to get the document so he
1 can take a look at it.
2 JUDGE JORDA: Fine.
3 MR. KEHOE:
4 Q. Now, Brigadier, you noted, and I think you
5 were referring to the first page, the second paragraph,
6 "Last night Muslim forces constantly conducted
7 re-grouping in order to realise their sinister plans."
8 And Mr. Nobilo asked you a question, the question was
9 on page 12.372, and the question was:
10 "We have a specific style of writing here,
11 for instance, reference to Muslim forces sinister aims.
12 Is this an example of the type of reporting you refer
13 to in the morning?" Your answer, Brigadier, is "yes."
14 Excuse me, "Yes, a part of the text in this report is
15 an eloquent example of the kinds of reports I was
16 referring to because commanders or members of Brigade
17 commands, due to lack of military training would write
18 this kind of combat order using terms which are not
19 important for military terminology."
20 Do you recall that, sir?
21 A. Yes, I do recall, but I have a combat report
22 here and you have just mentioned combat order and there
23 is a major difference between the two, so it may be an
24 interpretation thing, I don't know.
25 Q. I am just reading what you said and I think
1 the words counsel was focusing on were the words
2 "sinister plans" and your opinion that they were not
3 proper in either a military order or a military
5 A. Yes. This vocabulary would never have been
6 used by officers who have a certain level of education
7 and training in writing documents to their superiors.
8 But in the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, such as it
9 was, these terms were encountered quite frequently
10 because the warring sides in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in
11 all three sides, were using very inappropriate terms.
12 Let's recall that after Washington and Dayton, the
13 International Community took a position and said that
14 the Serbian army has to be called the army of the
15 Republika Srpska. That the Bosnian army had to be
16 called the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Croatian
17 army had to be called the Croatian Defence Council, so
18 that was a very widespread usage.
19 Q. Brigadier, let me turn your attention to
20 Kiseljak and what was going on in Kiseljak in the 16th
21 or April of 1993 prior to the outbreak of hostilities
22 on the 16th and 17th of April. Isn't it true that the
23 ethnic tensions between the Muslims and the Croats in
24 Kiseljak was very high?
25 A. That is correct. Because the conflict in the
1 Kiseljak municipality between HVO and the BH army
2 started as early as January of 1993.
3 Q. So, by the time a conflict broke out on the
4 16th of April, it's fair to say, is it not, Brigadier,
5 that the tensions between the Bosnian Croats and the
6 Bosnian Muslims in Kiseljak were very high?
7 A. I cannot confirm that, that this was the
8 case, and the reason for it is that after the conflict
9 of January, 1993, some certain commissions were
10 established and those commissions were given the task
11 to lower the tension and carry out the tasks, which I
12 think we have seen here, and we saw that both the
13 representatives of both the HVO and the BH army were
14 members of those commissions.
15 Q. So, I mean, were the tensions high or low in
16 April 16th? Were the emotions running very high or
17 very low in Kiseljak on the 16th of April?
18 A. In order to fully respond to what happened on
19 16 April in Kiseljak, I would like to request to be
20 given the report from Kiseljak from that date in order
21 to fully recall.
22 Q. I don't have that, Brigadier. All I am
23 asking is you just based on what you said before, that
24 tensions between Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats in
25 Kiseljak were very high in April of 1993. That's all.
1 Prior to the outbreak of the conflict. I don't have a
2 particular report.
3 A. In my personal view, and this is my personal
4 conclusion on the basis of my entire insight of the
5 Central Bosnia territory, I believe that the tensions
6 were running high and I believe that when we sent the
7 report on the 16th about what was going on in Vitez and
8 Busovaca, that we were attacked and that this, I
9 believe that this information did contribute to the
10 situation in Kiseljak, because we, that is the
11 Operative Zone command, issued orders to lower tensions
12 in order to avoid an open conflict.
13 Q. Well, prior to the outbreak of hostilities on
14 the 16th of April, Blaskic made frequent trips to
15 Kiseljak, travelling in a BRITBAT warrior, an armed
16 personnel carrier, didn't he?
17 A. I cannot confirm that or I cannot deny that
18 either because, again, let me ask you, did he go five
19 times or ten times? As far as I know, he did not go
20 there frequently.
21 Q. Well, based on the documents submitted by the
22 Defence, and we can pull those out, he was certainly in
23 Kiseljak the weekend before hostilities broke out in
24 Vitez. I mean that the document that the Defence put
25 in says he was there from the 9th to the 12th of April
1 in Kiseljak, and I think you said in your testimony
2 that he often went to Kiseljak because his family was
4 A. Mr. President, General Blaskic would
5 frequently go to Kiseljak before the conflict in
6 January, before the road at Kacuni was not cut off at
7 the length of 11 kilometres. And after the cease fire
8 was signed --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could you ask the witness
10 to speak a little more slowly, please.
11 MR. KEHOE: Brigadier, I think the
12 translation booth, I don't mean to interrupt you, sir,
13 the translation booth just asked you to slow down a
14 bit, sir.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, I understood. Mr.
16 President, let me repeat everything I have said.
17 Before the conflict in January 1993, General Blaskic
18 did go frequently to Brestovsko, his hometown, and
19 Kiseljak because this was possible. After the conflict
20 in January, 1993, after the road between Busovaca and
21 Kiseljak had been cut off, that is placed under control
22 of the BH army at the village of Kacuni, when General
23 Blaskic wanted to go to Kiseljak, he would have to
24 write to UNPROFOR and ask to be driven to Kiseljak,
25 which was only accepted if he was going to attend
1 certain meetings organised by UNPROFOR and UNPROFOR
2 work representatives would be present there until he
3 came back. He had to always state why he was going
4 where and how long he was going to stay there. This is
5 what I know about these activities.
6 Q. The fact of the matter is that after the road
7 was cut off in mid-January, he made frequent requests
8 of BRITBAT and he made frequent trips to Kiseljak to
9 visit his troops and visit his family? That's all I am
10 asking you.
11 A. He did not go to Kiseljak frequently.
12 Q. Okay, sir. We'll come back to that because
13 we'll show you some documents, but at this point you
14 would agree based on the Defence documents, he was in
15 Kiseljak the weekend before the hostilities broke out
16 if Vitez; correct?
17 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, my learned
18 colleague is misleading the witness. We would like to
19 see the document, which the document that he is
20 referring to, which put Blaskic in Kiseljak on those
21 days, and this is implicit in the question.
22 JUDGE JORDA: The Prosecutor did not say
23 that, Mr. Nobilo. The Prosecutor asked a series of
24 clarifying questions about the visits to Kiseljak. The
25 witness and the Prosecution do not agree and they are
1 in agreement with adverbs like "frequently" or "not
2 very often." I think the Prosecutor said what he had
3 to say properly and at the proper time he will show the
4 document. There is nothing unusual about that. He is
5 not taking the witness down any wrong path. The
6 Prosecutor simply noted the witness' answer.
7 Continue, please, Mr. Kehoe.
8 MR. KEHOE:
9 Q. Now, Brigadier, with the ethnic tensions
10 being high in Kiseljak, Blaskic knew that those ethnic
11 tensions were high in Kiseljak as well as you knew
12 that, didn't he?
13 A. Regarding tensions in Kiseljak, I gave you my
14 personal view. My personal view is that the tensions
15 were high not only in Kiseljak, but in all other
16 places. What General Blaskic's opinion was, I do not
18 Q. Well, let me show you Defence Exhibit 299 to
19 start with. Mr. Dubuisson, if we can pull 300 as well,
20 Defence Exhibit 300, both of those documents, it would
21 be helpful.
22 Exhibit 299 is the preparatory order to the
23 Ban Jelacic Brigade that was introduced by the Defence
24 that you recognise, that you identified. Isn't that
25 correct, Brigadier?
1 A. Yes, this is a document drafted in the
2 command of the Operative Zone, signed by General
3 Blaskic, and it is a preparatory combat order for the
4 tying up of a part of the Muslim forces that are
5 attacking the HVO. That is exactly how the document is
7 Q. In No. 1, the second to last sentence, the
8 sentence that reads: "In the combats that raged
9 yesterday." Do you see that?
10 A. I do.
11 Q. The sentence reads: "In the combats that
12 raged yesterday, the enemy used the favourite method of
13 the Chetniks, pushing women and children in front to
14 use them as a shield and then to occupy the main
15 strategic objects." If we move down to 4: "Keep in
16 mind that the lives of the Croats in the region of
17 Lasva depend on your mission. This region could become
18 a tomb for all of us if you show lack of resolution."
19 Do you see that, sir?
20 A. I do.
21 Q. Let's turn our attention to the Defence
22 Exhibit 300. An order dated 17 April, 1993, which you
23 not only recognise, but you wrote. Do you see that,
25 A. I do.
1 Q. The order for combat operations, dated 17
2 April, 1993, at 23.45, that orders combat operations to
3 begin the following morning at 05.30. In No. 1, under
4 "Enemy," Blaskic, or you, wrote: "The enemy continues
5 to massacre Croats in Zenica where Muslim forces are
6 using tanks to fire at people, mostly women and
8 Do you see that, sir?
9 A. Yes, I do. May I provide an explanation for
10 this statement?
11 Q. Certainly.
12 A. On the 17th of April, in the territory of
13 Vitez and Busovaca displaced persons were already
14 arriving from Zenica. They were carrying with them
15 this kind of rumour. In order to check, because we
16 couldn't go to Zenica, I know that the Commander
17 contacted UNPROFOR and asked them if he could go and
18 see what was happening in Zenica. So, the wording of
19 this text reflects what I have just said.
20 Q. Well, let me show you another document, sir.
21 Mr. Usher.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Document 494, 494A for the
23 English version.
24 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, unfortunately there
25 is no French version as yet of this.
1 Q. Brigadier, let me turn your attention to the
2 document. Do you recognise Colonel Blaskic's
4 A. Yes, this is a document signed by General
6 Q. With his stamp?
7 A. Yes, this is the stamp of the Operative Zone
9 Q. This is again a document -- excuse me, this
10 is again a document that is written to the Ban Jelacic
11 Brigade in Kiseljak, dated 19 April, 1993. Time:
12 18.45. Let us turn to point 5 in this document.
13 You're welcome, of course, to read the entire matter,
14 but the questions that I am interested in will be
15 focused on No. 5:
16 "The future of all Croats of Busovaca,
17 Travnik, Vitez and Novi Travnik depends on your
18 success, whereas in Zenica -- some words are illegible
19 -- in any concentration camp, in particular, Gornji
20 Zenica, where our people who fled from the centre of
21 Zenica are being slaughtered even today. There is a
23 Do you see that, sir?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Let's go one last document, 456/50, which is
1 another order being sent to the Ban Jelacic Brigade,
2 approximately two hours later on the 19th. Hour:
3 21.40. 456/50.
4 Do you have that, Brigadier?
5 A. Yes, I have the document.
6 Q. It is a document, as I just noted, of 19
7 April, 1993. Again, to the Ban Jelacic Brigade at
8 21.40 hours by the packet system, I think you will
9 agree with me. And let's read No. 3:
10 "At the moment, the Croatian people of
11 Zenica are going through a most critical period. They
12 are literally being slaughtered."
13 Do you see that, sir?
14 A. Yes, I see it, and the explanation why it is
15 worded in this way is as follows: I said that after
16 the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th, displaced persons were
17 coming from Zenica, bringing with them such rumours and
18 reports, and so the Commander in view of the complexity
19 of the situation we found yourselves in, let me remind
20 you that on the 19th, were the strongest attacks on
21 Vitez and Busovaca and according to reports coming from
22 Kiseljak, he would issue this kind of order.
23 Q. Now you were asked about this terminology by
24 Mr. Nobilo during your direct examination, and I am
25 referring counsel to page 12.407, and you were asked
1 about why Blaskic used this methodology to send the Ban
2 Jelacic Brigade into combat. Line 13: "Why did
3 General Blaskic need to order the Ban Jelacic Brigade
4 into action in such a dramatic way? Such an emotional
5 way? Why didn't he just order, go ahead, do such and
6 such a thing? Why wouldn't that have been militarily
7 more proper?" Your answer was: "Yes, that's correct.
8 It would have been more proper in military terms.
9 However, as I mentioned there were very, very few
10 militarily educated officers with proper military
11 training and enough experience."
12 Do you recall that?
13 A. I do recall that, and I still think along the
14 same lines as I said then.
15 Q. Well, when this was going to the Ban Jelacic
16 Brigade, Mijo Bozic was the commander of the Ban
17 Jelicic Brigade; wasn't he?
18 A. Yes, Mijo Bozic was the commander of the Ban
19 Jelacic Brigade. But if I may add, because of the lack
20 of military organisation and lack of understanding of
21 the seriousness of the situation on the part of certain
22 commanders, and the difficulties encountered by
23 neighbouring units in Busovaca, Kiseljak and Vitez, we
24 had to use this kind of language for people to realise
25 how serious the situation was because reports coming
1 from Busovaca and Vitez spoke of the seriousness of the
2 situation, and that can also be seen if we look at the
3 model in relief, we see the position of the town of
4 Vitez and Busovaca, as of the 17th.
5 Q. Didn't you tell us both in direct and
6 cross-examination that Mijo Bozic was a graduate of the
7 military academy, just like the accused, Colonel
9 A. Yes, Mijo did graduate from the military
10 academy; but while he was in Kiseljak he would not
11 recognise, from an order using the regular language,
12 how serious the situation was. The commander would
13 have never used these words if it wasn't so serious.
14 Because the 19th of April was a day which was decisive
15 for us, to be or not to be, to defend Busovaca or to
16 lose it.
17 So, this is the text of a man pleading out of
19 Q. Brigadier, the fact of the matter is that
20 Mijo Bozic was a trained officer that went to the
21 military academy and the JNA, and he understood orders
22 to do things; didn't he?
23 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, but I think the witness
24 has answered that question, Mr. Kehoe.
25 MR. KEHOE: We will move on, Judge.
1 Q. These orders were sent to the Kiseljak Ban
2 Jelicic Brigade at a point when ethnic tensions in
3 Kiseljak were very high; isn't that so?
4 A. These orders were not sent to Kiseljak
5 because of ethnic tensions. These orders that went to
6 Kiseljak were sent there for Kiseljak to engage forces
7 of the BH army that were attacking Busovaca. They were
8 not sent there to heighten tensions, under no
9 circumstances; because the war was already on, it was a
10 state of war. So, there is no point in saying whether
11 there was heightened ethnic tensions or not.
12 Q. Well, when Blaskic writes to the Ban Jelacic
13 Brigade, Brigadier, and tells them that Croats are
14 continuing to be massacred in Zenica and being
15 slaughtered in Zenica on the 19th, that was done to
16 inflame the passions of the Ban Jelacic Brigade; wasn't
18 A. No, it was not. The aim of these orders was
19 to engage the forces of the BH army. This reference to
20 massacres and slaughtering, I said what my sources
21 were. Perhaps General Blaskic had some other even more
22 specific information. But I know that we asked
23 UNPROFOR to go to Zenica and check whether this was
24 indeed happening.
25 Q. And they went to up by Kuber, based on one of
1 your orders about a slaughter in Jelinak, and they
2 found nothing; isn't that right?
3 A. Yes. We had a report that this was happening
4 at Kuber, as well, and we asked UNPROFOR to go there.
5 UNPROFOR officers went there, examined the situation,
6 and we knew that it was not true.
7 But, if you get a report like that in a
8 situation of war, you must not, you don't have any time
9 to speculate whether it is true or not. If you have no
10 other information, that is the information for you,
11 until it is proven false.
12 Q. Brigadier, isn't it true that Blaskic, as a
13 trained soldier, knew that writing these kinds of
14 orders about slaughters taking place in Zenica, that it
15 was clearly foreseeable that it would inflame the
16 passions of the HVO soldiers in Kiseljak? Isn't that
18 A. I don't know what General Blaskic had in mind
19 at the time. But I know that the aim of these orders
20 was to engage the enemy forces and to ease the pressure
21 on Busovaca.
22 Q. Let's move on, Brigadier. I just want to
23 clarify a couple of things, if we could just check one
24 thing that you said.
25 You noted the numbering system on these
1 documents, and you noted that the numbering system on
2 the documents, some discrepancies in that regard were
3 illustrative of the lack of HVO organisational
4 structure; do you remember that testimony?
5 A. I said -- I apologise, microphone?
6 Q. Sometimes you lean on that and it hits the
7 buttons down.
8 A. Mr. President, when defining the reference
9 numbers used in the HVO, if we look at this particular
10 document dated the 19th of April, at the time we did
11 not receive any standard instructions as to how this
12 should be done. We received such instructions towards
13 the end of 1993.
14 This kind of numbering was the numbering that
15 we introduced in the Operative Zone command, and it is
16 the system that we used; whereas each of the brigades
17 had their own system of numbering documents.
18 For example, the number 406, or rather 01,
19 that means that it is a commander's document; number 4
20 indicated the month; number 406, that is the number
21 under which it was registered in the file, and in the
22 records where record was kept of all incoming and
23 outgoing documents.
24 That is how the numbering was done, as far as
25 I can remember.
1 Q. Wasn't the formatting of that numbering
2 system following what had been set out in the Narodni
3 Lists for formatting these numbers?
4 A. In this case, and in this period that we're
5 talking about in April 1993, that was not so. I cannot
6 remember now, but we had some documents here when we
7 received instructions from the main headquarters as to
8 how we should proceed. Then those instructions were
9 followed, both in the Operative Zone command and all
10 the subordinate units.
11 Q. Let me show you a document, sir, from the
12 Narodni List. Take a look at this, and I would ask you
13 if this was the format that was followed in the Central
14 Bosnian Operative Zone.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Document 495, 495A for the
16 English version.
17 MR. KEHOE:
18 Q. Take a look at these articles, Brigadier. I
19 ask to you take a look at specifically articles 2 and
20 3. In those articles, doesn't that article 1 indicate
21 a numbering system; for instance, 01 for documents of
22 the HVO, and then reference numbers are discussed down
23 in article 3? Isn't that the formatting structure that
24 Colonel Blaskic adapted for use within the HVO Central
25 Bosnia headquarters?
1 THE REGISTRAR: Microphone.
2 MR. KEHOE:
3 Q. Let me repeat my question. The numbering
4 system that was set forth in articles 2 and 3; isn't
5 that the basic numbering system that Colonel Blaskic
6 adapted for use in the Central Bosnian Operative Zone?
7 I show you article 2.1, with the documents of
8 the HVO being 01, and the use of a reference number and
9 slashes after the figures in the year. Isn't that the
11 A. No. In April in 1993, until we received
12 regulations regarding the formatting of the numbers
13 from the Ministry of Defence, we used the method of
14 marking that we saw in the previous documents, and we
15 introduced that method internally within the Operative
17 From article 2 of the Official Gazette, we
18 can see that the reference numbers refer to ministries
19 or departments in the Croatian community of
20 Herceg-Bosna. This applied to the internal
21 organisation of the government of Herceg-Bosna.
22 So, on the basis of this Narodni List, the
23 Ministry of Defence elaborated its own procedure and
24 defined the system of numbering at lower levels, and we
25 received those instructions towards the end of 1993.
1 When we received that document, which was
2 based on this one, we began marking documents
4 Q. Well, you would agree with me that in the
5 lower right-hand corner, or I'm not sure that's true in
6 your original, that this article setting out the
7 numbering system was enacted in Mostar on the 14th of
8 October 1992; isn't that correct?
9 A. Yes, that can be seen from this document.
10 But the defence department, for its organisational
11 entities, of which we were one as the Operative Zone,
12 elaborated its principles at the end of 1993.
13 Q. We don't need to belabour this point, the
14 document speaks for itself. Thank you, Brigadier.
15 Let's move on to a series of orders that were
16 introduced by the Defence.
17 MR. KEHOE: With your assistance,
18 Mr. Dubuisson, if I could have Exhibit 263, 267, 268,
19 269 and 270.
20 JUDGE JORDA: Excuse me, please continue,
21 Mr. Prosecutor.
22 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, I'm just
23 waiting for these documents to be given to the
24 Brigadier, in any event.
25 MR. KEHOE:
1 Q. Now, we're talking first, Brigadier, about
2 Defence Exhibit 263 and the number is 01-4-190/93; is
3 that right?
4 A. Yes, that is what it says.
5 Q. Could I ask you, Brigadier, with the
6 President's permission, could you take the marker to
7 your right and just write that number on the easel that
8 is to your left? If could you do it big enough so the
9 camera can pick it up, sometimes when we write small
10 it's difficult to see. If you could put your -- all
11 I'm saying, if you could write it large enough so the
12 cameras can pick it up. So use your best judgement on
13 that. If you would just write that number 01-4.
14 A. (Complies).
15 Q. Could I ask you one more time if you could
16 just probably double the size of that so they can pick
17 it up, so they can pick it up on the cameras? It's a
18 little difficult to see it that far away.
19 A. (Complies).
20 Q. You can take a seat, sir. Thank you.
21 Now, Brigadier, tell me a little bit about
22 this numbering system that was employed in the Central
23 Bosnian Operative Zone.
24 JUDGE JORDA: Is it 01 or 07,
25 Mr. Prosecutor?
1 MR. KEHOE: That's 01.
2 JUDGE JORDA: To me it looks like 07, because
3 I am -- we haven't put the right document on the ELMO,
4 or what? Oh, I see, I apologise.
5 MR. KEHOE: I think the document on the ELMO
6 is wrong. I think the original is right.
7 JUDGE JORDA: Very well, I apologise. Please
9 MR. KEHOE:
10 Q. Brigadier, I think you told us before that
11 the 01 is an order that comes from Colonel Blaskic, the
12 number 4 is the month, the number 190 is the number in
13 sequence, and the year is 93; is that right?
14 A. Yes, that was the system.
15 Q. Tell me about the rest of the system. After
16 this has been signed by Colonel Blaskic or someone on
17 his behalf and it's given a number, how was it logged
18 into the records?
19 A. I will describe it as I remember, though I
20 didn't keep the logbook. As far as I recall, there was
21 a book, a logbook, into which all documents were
22 entered. Those that were being sent from the Operative
23 Zone command to superiors, and to subordinates,
24 commands, orders, reports, the entire correspondence.
25 Also, a record was kept of everything
1 received, orders from superiors, other reports and
2 information. As far as I remember, that was how it
4 Q. Now, sir, if we go through these documents
5 and we move through 267, 268, 269, and I'd like you to
6 review those before you focus on Exhibit 270; could you
7 do that for me, please?
8 A. Could you please repeat the numbers of the
9 documents so I know I have the right ones in my hands?
10 Q. Yes, we just discussed 263, and we then go to
11 267, 268, 269 and then 270.
12 A. I have looked at these documents that you
13 have mentioned, the three documents, and I said that
14 during the direct examination by Mr. Nobilo that I
15 noticed that these documents do not bear a number, this
16 reference number is missing. That is the difference
17 between this document and document number 263.
18 Q. Well, I want to focus your attention, before
19 I go on to the other documents, I would like to focus
20 your attention on Exhibit 270; and that does have a
21 number, doesn't it? That should be the information.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And what is the number there, sir?
24 A. The document is number D270, it has been
25 entered in the logbook under the registration number
2 Q. Okay. Could you write that number on the
3 board underneath the one that you have just written?
4 If you could take the marker again.
5 MR. KEHOE: Mr. Usher, if we could just help
6 him a moment with that. Just write the number.
7 A. (Complies).
8 Q. Now, stay there, Brigadier. You would agree
9 with me, based on the content of that document, that
10 the 8 is a typographical error and should be a 4; isn't
11 that right?
12 A. Yes, this is an error, and there are a number
13 of such documents. But if you look at the time when
14 this document was written, it is the morning when the
15 attack occurred on the territory of Vitez municipality,
16 it is probably due to haste and panic. I've even seen
17 some documents where there is an error regarding the
18 year, though it is obvious from the text that it refers
19 to another year. So, this is a mistake.
20 Q. I have no doubt what you're saying. I just
21 ask if you could correct that, knowing that the date is
22 a 4, could you put down the 4 over the number 8 so we
23 know that is in fact an order that was issued in April,
24 as opposed to in August?
25 A. (Complies).
1 Q. If you could stay there Brigadier. At
2 approximately what time was the 240 order on the 4th,
3 approximately what time was that issued? I guess it
4 was sometime after 5.45 in the morning?
5 A. This order, as far as I can remember, it's
6 not an order, actually, it's information. There's a
7 difference. I'm sorry.
8 Q. I'm talking about when the document was
9 issued. Approximately what time do you think it was
11 A. As far as I recall, it could have been about
13 Q. Okay, could you throw down your best estimate
14 of 09.00 under that number as the time?
15 A. (Complies).
16 Q. Now, if I could just turn your attention back
17 to, with the assistance of the usher, Exhibit 263. And
18 if you could put the time down for the order that we
19 have on the 14th of April 1993, and if you could put
20 that time down, time and date, if you could.
21 A. (Complies). I need to indicate the year?
22 Q. Sure, you could just throw the year in, and
23 the time, which I believe is 9.30 -- excuse me, 10.30.
24 Sorry, I can't even read the numbers. 10.30.
25 One last thing, and the date on the bottom
1 number, which is 16-4-93. The one, the second number,
2 I believe you told us was on the 16th, is that right?
3 I'm talking about 1-4-240, that was issued on the
4 morning of the 16th. Can you just write down --
5 A. Excuse me, what am I supposed to write down?
6 Q. Just write down the date, so we know what
7 date that number was issued.
8 A. (Complies).
9 Q. Thank you, sir. You can have a seat.
10 Now, Brigadier, based on that, would you
11 agree with me that between 10.30 in the morning on the
12 14th of April 1993, and approximately 9.00 in the
13 morning on the 16th of April of 1993, we had
14 approximately 50 documents either incoming or outgoing,
15 coming out of the headquarters -- or outgoing, excuse
16 me, because the incoming would have their own numbers.
17 A. The exact number can be found by subtracting
18 the top number from the bottom number and you said it
19 was how many?
20 Q. My math is not the best and take 190 from
21 240, come up with 50.
22 A. Yes, 50.
23 Q. So we have 50 outgoing documents that have
24 numbers on them during that time frame; is that right?
25 JUDGE JORDA: Sent and received, Mr. Kehoe.
1 You said sent and received, I am not sure I understood
3 MR. KEHOE:
4 Q. These are numbers that are outgoing, issued,
5 outgoing. The incoming had their own numbers.
6 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, I needed that
7 clarification. Thank you very much. Do you agree with
8 that, Brigadier?
9 THE WITNESS: I do not agree with that, Mr.
10 President. When I said, as far as I recall, that is
11 the way the correspondence was registered or logged,
12 the incoming mail, I believe that it was the same
13 logbook that both the incoming and the outgoing
14 documents were logged. So there would be a logistics,
15 personnel, information, public information, anything
16 that was drafted and anything that was incoming, I
17 think was locked in there.
18 JUDGE JORDA: I am just asking a general
19 question. Are you sure about that? This is the first
20 time that I see an important civilian military
21 echelon. That would be only that kind of numbering
22 system because it would be hard to find one's way
23 around. All right, let's go on. It just seems a
24 little strange to me, that the same numbers be used.
25 Mustnt be very easy for Colonel Blaskic, all of a
1 sudden when he wants document number such and such and
2 someone brings him a document that was received and not
3 one that was sent. That wouldn't have made things very
4 easy. But, all right, that's not a problem for right
5 now. I was just a bit surprised, but I asked for the
6 clarification because the Prosecution had spoken about
7 incoming and/or, so I want to be sure here.
8 MR. KEHOE:
9 Q. Well, to follow up on the President's
10 questions, Brigadier, none of the documents that were
11 presented by the Defence, or had been shown to you,
12 have a number given to it that is incoming, isn't that
13 so? All of the numbers that were given to documents
14 executed in the Central Bosnia Operative Zone, were
15 outgoing documents; isn't that accurate?
16 A. I said what I remember, which is that the
17 same logbook was used to enter whatever was drafted in
18 the command and whatever was incoming. I am trying to
19 recall how it worked. This was an improvised system,
20 Mr. President. It is a system which we instituted
21 without any particular standards, and the staff that
22 worked on this did not have any experience in these
23 activities and I know how the procedure went.
24 So if a document would come in, let's say it
25 was received through the packet system, the officer
1 would look at it and then it would initial it or
2 something and mark it, and then it would be sent to a
3 person who would log it. This document would be then
4 entered and given the next number. Let's say we've
5 reached number 300, let's say we receive a document
6 which was just drafted and signed by the Commander and
7 then this person would just enter it as the next
8 number, 301. This is how I remember things being
10 Q. Well, Brigadier, of the documents that are
11 before you, Exhibits 263, 267, 268, 269 or 270, are any
12 of these your documents?
13 A. Let me review them in order. Document No.
14 263 was drafted by me, and I signed it, and I was
15 authorised to do so by the Commander.
16 Q. Excuse me, maybe my question wasn't clear.
17 Did they belong to you? Did you have them in your
18 possession prior to coming here to testify? Any of
19 these documents that we talked about.
20 A. These documents were shown to me by the
22 Q. Okay. So you did not have them in your
23 possession before you came here?
24 A. No. I only reviewed the documents which were
25 shown to me by the Defence.
1 Q. Now, Brigadier, in a system -- just following
2 up on the President's questions -- in order to have an
3 contract record keeping system, it's important to have
4 the documents numbered, such as the numbering that's on
5 Exhibit 263; isn't that right?
6 A. Yes. There has to be one, but this is what
7 we have before us is what actually happened.
8 Q. Now, take a look at Exhibits 267, 268 and
9 269. That is the order from the 15th of April at
10 10.00, the order of the 15th of April at 1545 and the
11 order of the 16th of April at 01.30.
12 A. Yes, I reviewed the documents.
13 Q. Now, none of those documents have numbers on
14 them. Is that correct?
15 A. Yes, and I pointed it out when asked by Mr.
16 Nobilo. I asked him why these documents were not
17 properly numbered, the gentleman from the Defence
18 should be asked this question.
19 Q. Well, as a military man, it's important to
20 have numbers on these documents in order to follow the
21 sequence of those documents; isn't that correct?
22 A. Yes, that is important too. But even more
23 important is what this document refers to and how it is
24 going to be implemented. But if we did not have this
25 numbering system, our work would have been completely
2 Q. Well, Brigadier, you noted during your direct
3 examination that when you saw these documents in the
4 headquarters of the Central Bosnia Operative Zone, they
5 did have numbers on them.
6 A. I said, and as I recall, it would have been
7 illogical for such documents not to have numbers.
8 Q. Let's take a look at Exhibit 268. And I ask
9 the witness to be shown the French translation as well
10 as the English translation, as well as the original
11 Bosnian or BCS versions.
12 Do you have all of those before you,
14 A. I have the Croatian version. I cannot read
15 French. I believe this could be French.
16 Q. And I hope English as well. But I sympathise
17 with your efforts because I can't read BCS.
18 Now, Brigadier, on the document that you have
19 before you, 268, it appears that the number has been
20 removed, doesn't it?
21 A. I cannot say that.
22 Q. Well, turn to the French and English
23 versions, the other two translations of this document.
24 It would appear that those were copied and the numbers
25 were removed on those as well; isn't that so?
1 A. I cannot give you a specific answer to your
2 question. I can only guess. I see the document in
3 Croatian. It is clear that there is no number on it,
4 and I find it illogical that it should not have a
5 number because I do know this document. I drafted this
6 document. I put this mark on it, so I do recall both
7 the contents and form of it.
8 Q. I appreciate what you're saying, Brigadier.
9 But I ask you to take a look at the French and the
10 English versions in the place where the number should
11 be and it would appear, does it not, that the number
12 has been removed from those two documents during
13 copying, doesn't it?
14 A. It does not seem to me to be that way.
15 Q. Do you have an extra copy of this?
16 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, in order to cut
17 short this debate, we stipulate that there were numbers
18 here, but they were removed. But Brigadier Marin has
19 no knowledge whatsoever about it. So, we stipulate
20 that, there is no need to pursue this.
21 MR. KEHOE: Well, Mr. President, if that's
22 the case, then maybe we should talk about this outside
23 the presence of the Brigadier because this is a matter
24 that we should discuss. That's the position, with the
25 Court's permission, the Prosecutor would like to
1 discuss this.
2 JUDGE JORDA: All right. We will have a
3 closed session right after the break. Take a twenty
4 minute break and everybody can think about this very
5 significant and interesting question. I suggest that
6 after twenty after four we resume in closed session.
7 --- Recess taken at 4.00 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 4.30 p.m.
9 (Closed session)
13 Pages 13071 to 13091 redacted - in closed session
1 (The witness entered court).
2 JUDGE JORDA: Brigadier, you're back with us
3 after this brief closed hearing, and I give the floor
4 again to Mr. Kehoe to continue with his
6 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President, Your
7 Honours. With the assistance of the office of the
8 registrar, can I have several documents, and if I could
9 read them in sequence to be shown to the Brigadier.
10 They are, should I read them off? D211, D334, D359,
11 D361 through 366, D376, and D384.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
13 MR. KEHOE: If the witness could be given all
14 those documents.
15 JUDGE JORDA: As soon as I see a document, I
16 begin to look to the left to see if there is a number
17 there, or see what the number is.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As regards the document on
19 the easel, do you want it to have a number?
20 MR. KEHOE: Yes, please.
21 THE REGISTRAR: This will be 497.
22 JUDGE JORDA: Do we have a copy of it for us?
23 We have it as a Defence Exhibit, Mr. Dubuisson.
24 THE REGISTRAR: No, it's a Prosecutor's
25 Exhibit. It's the one on the easel, the numbers.
1 JUDGE JORDA: All right.
2 THE REGISTRAR: It's 497, that is the
3 document that's on the easel.
4 MR. KEHOE: Does the Brigadier have all those
5 documents? I'm sorry.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, he was given everything.
7 MR. KEHOE: Okay. I would also ask that
8 these documents be handed out, Mr. Usher.
9 THE REGISTRAR: This will be 498/1 and then
10 according to your numbering.
11 MR. KEHOE:
12 Q. Brigadier, let me ask you a question: Do you
13 know Major General Primorac?
14 A. Yes, I do know Major General -- I do know
15 Major General Ivica Primorac.
16 Q. And what is he, sir?
17 A. I do know Major General Ivica Primorac, and
18 as far as I know, he works in the defence ministry in
20 Q. Now, let me take a look at the documents that
21 have been admitted into evidence during the course of
22 your testimony, Brigadier. If we can compare them to
23 the orange folder that you have in your hands, and the
24 first particular insert is a receipt from Major General
25 Primorac, and I want to direct your attention to tab
1 2. I would like you to compare that with Defence
2 Exhibit 211.
3 Mr. Usher --
4 A. My apologies. I did not have
6 JUDGE JORDA: Just a moment. I would like to
7 understand your question better, Mr. Kehoe.
8 MR. KEHOE: Well, the question is going
9 through these documents, and the documents are in tabs
10 2 through 11. They are the documents that were
11 provided to the Office of the Prosecutor by
12 Mr. Primorac. The Defence has introduced those
13 documents, as I have reflected, in the front page,
14 D211, D234, et cetera, and a reflection of those
15 documents will indicate that on each one of the
16 documents provided by Major General Primorac, there are
17 no numbers, whereas the numbers that were in the
18 Defence documents, there is.
19 JUDGE JORDA: I would like to see them on the
20 screen. Can we see them on the screen, please? The
21 interpreters will have problems also if they don't see
22 them on the screen.
23 If you have problems, Mr. Kehoe, I will try
24 to find my document 211, but it has to be on the ELMO.
25 All right, 211. All right. I have found the Defence
1 document under number D211 and D211A for the French
2 version. Now you want us to make a comparison of this
3 with the documents that were tendered from the
4 Prosecutor's Office or the Defence? I am lost here.
5 Could you explain it to me, please?
6 MR. KEHOE: The Defence.
7 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, Ivica Primorac
8 provided these documents to the Prosecutor and the
9 Defence provided them with registration numbers.
10 MR. KEHOE: That's exactly my point.
11 JUDGE JORDA: Well, I am delighted. For once
12 we're getting answers even before the questions are
13 asked. That's really wonderful.
14 What conclusion are you trying to draw from
15 this? That is, drawing from your comment. Mr. Nobilo
16 is saying he has a document which was submitted with a
17 reference number. I think it's a small "g" next to the
18 17 March 1993; is that right, Mr. Kehoe?
19 MR. KEHOE: It is -- actually, that is not
20 the reference number. If we put the B/C/S number on
21 the ELMO, you can see on the Defence copy that there is
22 a number above the 12th or the 17th of March, 1993 --
23 17th of March. The English translation does not have
24 that number, but the original B/C/S does.
25 JUDGE JORDA: What is your conclusion, or, in
1 fact, what is your question? But for the time being,
2 this is discussion going on between the Defence and the
3 Prosecution. I am not sure what is it you want to ask
4 the witness, I don't know what he is going to say.
5 MR. KEHOE: My question of the witness is
6 that with all of these documents that he admitted,
7 these documents that we listed that had numbers on
8 them, the documents that we have in Exhibit 498 are
9 exactly the same, or virtually exactly the same except
10 for the numbers being deleted, and the ones being
11 deleted were the documents that were provided to the
12 Office of the Prosecutor by Brigadier General Primorac
13 -- or Major General Primorac.
14 MR. HAYMAN: If the witness is going to be
15 forced to review and compare these 10 or 15 documents,
16 we might as well recess for the evening,
17 Mr. President. But what's the point of asking the
18 witness to undertake such a review? It's apparent on
19 the face of the documents that we were able to get
20 documents with the reference numbers and we've provided
21 them in this case.
22 MR. KEHOE: The point is this, Mr. President,
23 and it's quite clear, that the Office of the
24 Prosecutor has been attempting to get documents from
25 the Bosnian Croat side of the federation pursuant to
1 binding orders since January of 1997, and the point is
2 that we haven't gotten documents in their total
3 unredacted form and what we have gotten are documents
4 such as these, and the point is that the Office of the
5 Prosecutor wants compliance with all of those documents
6 and doesn't want this type of response coming from the
7 office -- from the federation side or the HVO side of
8 the federation.
9 Now, the next portion of this is the series
10 of orders that were handed down by the defence
11 department for officers, such as the Brigadier, to
12 gather documents that were in compliance with the
13 binding order issued by this Court and provide them to
14 the HVO by a certain date. Now, that's another series
15 of documents.
16 The question on that score is: Has the
17 Brigadier actually been given that order; and if, in
18 fact, he and anybody else in the HVO turned those
19 documents over to an archive, who, in turn, has not
20 turned those documents over to the Court?
21 Now, this is a particular individual who is a
22 high-ranking office in the HVO in the one unit, or one
23 Brigade -- not Brigade, but one large part of the army
24 left, who should know full well whether the HVO should
25 be complying with this Court's order. That's where
1 were going in this regard. Given the fact that this
2 Brigadier is here, these questions need to be answered
3 in order for us to ensure whether or not compliance is
4 ever going to come, whether or not he got this order,
5 whether or not no one told him about it. There are a
6 series of questions that must be asked of this
7 officer in order to find out what exactly is going on
8 and why this Court's binding order has not been
9 complied with. It's as simple as that.
10 MR. HAYMAN: First of all, Mr. President,
11 that's beyond the scope of the direct examination. We
12 don't object to a straight question to the witness:
13 Has he had any responsibilities or obligations with
14 respect to responding to any orders of this Court for
15 documents? But let's get to the point, please.
16 JUDGE JORDA: First of all, you've noted that
17 the Defence does not object your asking these questions
18 of Brigadier.
19 Second comment is, now the Judge speaking, I
20 would like to know if you're contesting the substance
21 and authenticity of the order? I think that's
22 important. And with respect for binding orders, you
23 know what the opinion of the Tribunal is on this; that
24 is, the unfortunate order to obey orders from the
1 Before I break for session, I would like you
2 to ask your question clearly. It will be the only
3 question that you're going to ask and then we will
4 resume tomorrow morning at 9.45. Don't lose sight of
5 the essential point, that is, we have an order from
6 Colonel Blaskic that was dated 17 March, 1993, and
7 which has a reference number in the Croatian version
8 with its reference number and I can see that in March
9 they use the numbers of the official journal contrary,
10 perhaps, to what he had said a bit hastily before. But
11 ask your question, and then tomorrow you may, if you
12 like, contest the substance of the order. Try to get
13 to the essential point; otherwise, we're going to be
14 here for a long time this evening and for a long time
15 after that.
16 This is the last question then. That is the
17 last question that the interpreters can interpret
18 today. Ask the witness the question.
19 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, we're dealing
20 with, in fact, 11 orders. The 11 orders that the
21 witness has in tabs 2 through 11 of the Defence has
22 admitted with orders that we have received -- excuse
23 me, the Defence has admitted with numbers and we have
24 received from Major General Primorac without numbers
25 and this witness has identified them, and I would like
1 to ask him whether or not he sees that they don't have
2 numbers and that, at the time he saw those numbers in
3 Central Bosnia, they did, when he saw those orders,
4 they did, in fact, have numbers. That's the essence of
5 this particular exhibit, that these numbers have been
6 removed as well, at least the ones that have been given
7 to us by Major General Primorac. Now, I don't think
8 that can be done in one question. I invite the witness
9 to examine this document overnight and we can answer it
10 in one question in the morning.
11 MR. HAYMAN: So stipulated, Mr. President.
12 Obviously the numbers have been removed. You can look
13 at the two documents. You can compare the documents.
14 Obviously the numbers were removed before they were
15 given to the Office of the Prosecutor.
16 JUDGE JORDA: Either the Defence are saying
17 that the numbers were removed, I suppose for the same
18 reasons that you mentioned a while back; is that right,
19 Mr. Hayman? This is a public hearing, so we're not
20 going to go into the details, but the same reasons?
21 MR. HAYMAN: We were not privy to the
22 production of these records. This was a secret
23 proceeding of which we were not involved. We don't
24 know exactly under what terms they got these redacted
25 documents or what they were told. All we can say is
1 what's the point of asking the witness to compare --
2 JUDGE JORDA: But these were directly
3 provided to you; is that right? They were provided to
4 you; is that correct?
5 MR. HAYMAN: Presented, apparently all the
6 same documents with registration numbers. The Court
7 has those now. But what apparently Mr. Kehoe wants to
8 ask the witness is, one at a time, to compare them and
9 ask him: Does the number appear on one document and
10 not the other? We submit that's silly. That's a waste
11 of time.
12 MR. KEHOE: It begs the question as to why
13 the number is removed from all the documents that are
14 given by the Prosecutor and the Defence seems to have
15 numbers on all of these documents. That's a
16 significant question for this Court.
17 MR. HAYMAN: The question is, what is the
18 question for the witness? We have a witness here
20 MR. KEHOE: Exactly, who just identified
21 every one of these documents as documents that he saw
22 in Central Bosnia with numbers.
23 MR. HAYMAN: There you are. It sounds like
24 the question has been answered.
25 JUDGE JORDA: Let me turn to the witness.
1 Brigadier Marin, when you were in office with
2 the accused, first of all, did you see the documents,
3 and when you saw them, if you did, did they have the
4 numbers that are in the version which has been provided
5 by the Prosecutor? That is for D211, provided by the
6 Defence without the number and for the document which
7 is in the 498 --
8 MR. NOBILO: Excuse me, Mr. President. The
9 Defence provided all the documents with registration
10 numbers and the Prosecution provided them without the
11 numbers and they're now making an issue out of that.
12 MR. KEHOE: Exactly. Because the ones we got
13 were pursuant to a binding order coming from this Court
14 to the Bosnian Croat side of the federation who gave us
15 these documents without numbers. And the question
16 remains: Why? Now the person who has identified these
17 documents in this courtroom as having been executed in
18 1993 is seated in the courtroom.
19 JUDGE JORDA: Brigadier, what's the answer to
20 the question that the Prosecutor asked you? I am not
21 going to dare ask it again. I am not sure I really
22 understood it. But you heard what he asked you.
23 THE WITNESS: Mr. President, before arriving
24 to testify here, I saw the documents produced by the
25 Defence, that is, the documents with registration
1 numbers or reference numbers. Before coming in this
2 courtroom, I never saw the documents which were
3 provided by the Prosecution. When these documents were
4 being produced in 1993, I confirmed that I recalled the
5 contents of these documents from 1993. Before I came
6 to this courtroom, I saw these documents offered by the
7 Defence. These documents, which were offered by the
8 Prosecution, I did not see before coming into the
9 courtroom, and I see now that they are without this
10 registration number.
11 JUDGE JORDA: We consider that the witness
12 has answered. I think we're going to suspend the
13 hearing, and we will see one another again tomorrow at
14 9.45 a.m.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
16 5.32 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday,
17 the 9th day of October, 1998, at
18 9.45 a.m.